5,n.  \4- 


^ 


^"^ 


%<^ 


^{  \\Lt  Mtohsimt  j^ 


%: 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


% 


% 


Presented    by  Lr,  F  L.Palto-n 


BT  75  .M575  1887 
Miller,  John,  1819-1895 
Theology 


n 


1.  xx^^^.     .-.     -^.  ^/i.     (^i2mo.)         ....  $i.oo 

2.  Commentary   on  Romans.     Pp.    390.     (8vo.)     .  1.50 

NEW  EDITIONS. 

3.  Are  Souls  Immortal?    3d  Ed.     Pp.178.    (i2mo.)  .80 

4.  Was  Christ  in  Adam?    3d  Ed.     Pp.  97.     (i2mo.)  .60 

5.  Is   God  a  Trinity?    3d   Ed.     Pp.    152.     (i2mo.)  .70 

6.  Questions  Awakened  by  the   Bible,  (being  Nos. 

3,  4  &  5  in  one  volume).       .  .         .  .  .1.25 

7.  Fetich  in  Theology.     3d  Ed.     Pp.  264.     (i2mo.)  i.oo 

8.  Theology    and    Fetich    in    Theology    (in    one 

volume).    .         .          .         .         .         .         .         .  1.50 

9.  Commentary    on    Proverbs      2d    Ed.     Pp.    721. 

(8vo.) •  2.00 

10.  Metaphysics.     Pp.  430.     (8vo.)           .         .         .  1.50 

11.  Creed.     (In  paper.)           ......  .10 

Nos.  2,  6  &  8  (when  mailed  or  bought  together).           .  3.50 

"      2,  6,  8  &  9  (A'hen  mailed  or  bought  together).             .  5  00 

"      2,  6,  8,  9,  lo&ii  (when  mailed  or  bought  together).  6.00 

Jlfaikd  post-paid  on   receipt  of  price   and  furnished  to   the 
trade   by    the 

EVANGELICAL    REFORM    PUBLICATION    CO., 

PRINCETON,  NEW  JERSEY. 


THE    TRADE  ALSO  SUPPLIED  BY 

Charles  T.   Dillingham,  678  Broadway,   New  York ; 
J.   B.   LiPPiNCOTT  Co.,  715  &  717  Market  Street,  Philadelphia 
A.   C.  McClurg  cS:  Co.,   117  to  121  Wabash  Avenue,  Chicago 
C.   H.  Whiting,   168  &  170  Devonshire  Street,  Boston. 


I.OO. 


THEOLOGY 


BY 


/ 


REV.  JOHN  MILLER. 


PRINCETON,  N.  J.: 
EVANGELICAL  REFORM  PUBLICATION  CO., 

1887. 

Mailed  post-paid  by  this  Company  on  receipt  of  price. 


Copyright, 

1887, 

By   JOHN    MILLER. 


Press  of  W.  L.   Mershon  &  Co. 
Rahway,  N  .  J. 


PREFACE. 


No  one  doubts  that  the  Syrian  bishops  bred 
Mohammed.  If  Mohammed  had  confronted  a 
purer  Christianity,  the  world  would  have  been 
spared  Islam.  No  one  doubts  that  Catholicism 
bred  Voltaire.  If  Paris  had  been  Switzerland,  and 
Voltaire  had  witnessed  a  rural  priesthood,  he  would 
have  had  no  zeal  to  *'  crush  the  wretch,"  and  would 
have  shrunk  abashed  from  the  role  of  a  blasphemer. 
No  one  doubts  that  Lambeth  bred  Jefferson.  If 
London  had  not  made  a  Botany  Bay  of  the  Chesa- 
peake, and  given  the  Colonists  drunkards  and  dead- 
beats  for  clergy,  Virginia,  of  all  States,  would  have 
been  devout ;  at  least,  she  would  have  been  respect- 
ful, and  Monticello  would  have  been  busy  on  other 
tasks  than  a  brutal  skepticism. 

The  veriest  child  in  reasoning,  looking  along  the 
line  of  years,  would  say.  The  best  way  to  prevent 
Islam  would  have  been  to  reform  Syria ;  and,  kind- 
ling at  the  thought,  would  swell  with  a  sort  of  im- 
patience at  the  wish  that  Rome  had  not  fed  Voltaire, 
and  that  Lambeth  had  found  out  the  work  she  was 
doing  for  her  distant  missions. 

But  alas  !  States  repent,  but  the  Church  hardly 
ever.     Britain  yields  and  slowly  listens  to  the  truth, 


4  Preface, 

and  shapes  her  state  constitution,  but  who  ever 
heard  of  a  Cliurch  doing  this?  The  Church  is  a 
Rehoboam,  and  it  is  a  sort  of  satire  upon  her  history 
that  she  speaks  of  reform,  and  takes  the  name  upon 
her  books  of  the  ''  Great  Reformation,"  and  when 
we  come  to  fathom  it,  there  never  was  a  reform  at 
all.  The  Church  unbendingly  kept  on  in  her  course, 
and  what  was  called  a  reform  was  the  expulsion  from 
her  side  of  her  purest  saints,  and  the  rallying  of 
these  in  a  separate  and  disowned  communion. 

When  did  a  church  ever  reform  ? 

An  opportunity  for  this  very  thing  is  what  this 
book,  with  all  the  zeal  that  it  can  command,  would 
like  to  offer.  What  is  it  that  is  bringing  such 
assaults  in  our  day?  Who  is  creating  IngersoU  ? 
What  is  the  Lambeth  or  the  Syrian  quag  that 
poisons  Science,  and  makes  all  but  believing  men 
despair  of  Christ,  and  half  give  up  our  inherited 
religion  ?  Is  there  anything  in  the  direction  of  the 
attacks,  which,  like  the  iron  in  the  mountain,  tells 
where  the  thunderbolt  most  loves  to  strike,  and  as 
watching  Voltaire  shows  where  religion  suffered,  and 
watching  Islam  shows  where  Syria  was  weak,  is 
there  anything  in  Spencer,  or  anything  in  Mill,  or 
anything  in  IngersoU,  which  shows  where  they  like 
to  thrust,  and  wdiere  there  are  some  hidden  spots 
that  belong  not  to  the  gospel  ? 

If  there  be,  then,  in  our  day,  two  courses  are  pos- 
sible, either  the  universal  course,  which  returns  with 
the  certainty  of  light,  and  which  gives  up  Christian- 
ity to  its  corruptions,  or  else  the  ideal  course,  never 


Preface,  5 

yet  adopted  by  the  good,  of  finding  these  corrup- 
tions out,  and  actually  avoiding  scoffs  by  clearing 
off  the  sottishnesses  which  have  mixed  with  our 
religion. 

And  now,  to  take  specimens  of  these  things: — 

I.  The  doctrine  oi  Atonement  \ook?>  like  an  angry 
boil  upon  the  body  of  the  Redeemer.  All  men  are 
embittered.  Christians  have  never  rested  in  one 
theory  of  the  transfer.  Protestants  have  tried  to 
make  one,  but  they  have  been  as  variant  as  their 
schools,  and  infidels  could  go  leisurely  through  the 
Church  and  pick  out,  in  the  hostile  camps,  the  in- 
vectives they  required,  in  the  speeches  of  one 
school  of  Christ  denouncing  and  ridiculing  another. 
Why  was  it  not  long  ago  that  the  Church,  doting 
upon  the  Atonement,  and  believing,  as  a  good  man 
ought,  that  it  is  the  very  essence  of  salvation,  en- 
quired down  to  the  very  roots  of  the  idea,  and 
found  that  there  had  been  a  splinter — that  there 
had  been  a  foreign  substance  at  the  very  bottom  of 
the  sore,  and  that  the  infidel  was  right,  that  the 
atonement,  with  that  in  it^  was  an  atrocity  as  a 
gospel  ? 

Instead  of  that  the  Governmental  and  the  Moral 
and  the  Exemplary  and  the  Penal,  all  have  taken 
their  places  as  Atonements.  They  have  given  up 
each  other.  Combined,  they  have  given  up  Christ. 
And  Ingersoll  comes  in,  and  denounces  the  whole 
gospel,  and  brands  as  a  bloodthirsty  God  the  Being 
that  could  have  revealed  such  essential  parts  of  it. 

Now  why,   at  this  late   day,  cannot  the   Church 


6  Preface, 

come  in,  and  ferret  out  its  angry  difficulty?  All 
these  theories  are  right.  The  Governmental  and 
the  Moral  and  the  Exemplary  and  the  Penal,  all  are 
elements  of  truth,  and  are  only  brutal  when  they 
decry  each  other.  The  splinter  lies  deeper.  We 
are  not  to  cut  out  the  Atonement  as  a  tumor,  and 
that,  practically,  all  these  combatants  do,  but  to  treat 
it  for  its  life,  and  to  find  out  that  the  whole  festering 
is  around  its  root,  and  that  Vindicatory  Justice,  that 
elemental  point  in  Ethics,  is  at  the  basis  of  the  whole 
disorder. 

What  is  Vindicatory  Justice? 

This  book  will  show  that  our  treatment  of  it  may 
be  altogether  human. 

Protestants  have  been  told  for  centuries  that  it  is 
a  native  trait,  that  it  stands  on  its  own  bottom.  No 
help  has  been  given  to  it  but  that  it  be  the  blood- 
thirstiness  seen  by  IngersoU.  It  is  a  native  revenge, 
seated  as  lawfully  as  pity.  And  all  through  these 
sad  years  men  have  been  up  in  the  branches  debat- 
ing consequential  facts,  when  the  whole  difficulty 
in  the  case  lay  in  the  meaning  of  Vengeance. 

Give  God  revenge,  and  not  simply  (i)  benevolence, 
and  (2)  a  love  of  holiness,  and  make  this  trait  prim- 
ordial (though  it  be  forbidden  to  men),  and  you 
have  a  Monster,  and  you  have  this  Monster  crushing 
you  for  years,  and  patterning  to  Mill  and  Hume  the 
whole  nature  of  your  believing.  So  much  for  one 
point.  Teach  a  vengeance  which  is  derivative,  and 
not  primordial,  and  which  flows  from  a  love  of  holi- 
ness, and   not  a  thirst  to  smite,  and  which   is   made 


Preface,  7 

necessary  by  a  need  to  punish,  as  a  constitutional 
necessity  of  a  King,  and  you  rob  IngersoU  at  once  ; 
you  enthrone  a  God  of  pity,  and,  instead  of  cutting 
out  the  vitals  in  order  to  get  rid  of  the  disease,  you 
have  found  out  the  splinter,  and  you  simply  remove 
it,  and  keep  unhurt  the  very  essence  of  our  system. 

II.  And  so  of  Hell.  The  world  seems  moving 
against  it.  The  Congregationalists  made  President 
in  Britain  a  man  who  denies  Gehenna.  No  faith  is 
rising  faster  than  "Conditional  Immortality." 

Whose  fault  is  it  ? 

If  there  be  an  eternal  pit,  it  is  cruel  to  hide  the 
news  of  it. 

And  yet,  as  in  the  case  of  Ransom,  the  Church 
has  provoked  the  defection. 

It  will  be  seen  in  this  book  how  Sovereignty  has 
been  lifted  up. 

We  will  not  anticipate. 

Place  God  out  of  the  sphere  of  our  humanity;  (i) 
let  Him  do  as  He  please  ;  (2)  let  Him  act  for  display  ; 
(3)  let  Him  live  for  Himself ;  (4)  let  Him  damn  as  He 
lists,  and  not  out  of  the  necessities  of  His  reign  ;  and 
(5)  let  Him  take  that  damnation  (hard  enough  to  be 
believed)  and  represent  it  as  for  His  own  glory;  and 
no  wonder  the  Church  shrinks.  Examine  where  the 
catapult  strikes,  and  we  will  find  that  it  is  at  these 
spots  every  time.  Make  God  a  loving  Father ;  show 
His  own  horror  for  wrath  ;  tell  His  own  story  of  sac- 
rifice;  show  His  own  eagerness  to  redeem;  deny 
sovereignty  except  as  it  is  holy,  and  deny  Hell  ex- 
cept as  it  is  a  hard  need,  as  unwelcome  to  God  as  to 


8  Preface, 

man ;  and  the  whole  strain  is  taken  off.  Ingersoll 
would  not  be  able  to  triumph  so  against  the  Pit,  and 
we  could  return  to  its  eternal  vengeance,  if  we  gave 
God  human  traits,  and  gave  Hell  human  qualities, 
of  unconquerable  and  dauntless  sinning. 

We  grime  our  God,  and  then,  of  course,  feel  the 
pressure,  almost  unbearable,  of  these  terrible  reve- 
lations. 

III.  Giving  God  an  excuse  for  Hell  in  so  light  a 
thing  as  display,  we  give  a  man  an  excuse  for 
Heaven  in  so  light  a  thing  as  faitJi.  The  rows  of 
felons  that  are  saved,  and  come  out  radiant  under 
the  noose,  create  a  recoil  that  ministers  know  little 
of.  It  is  a  standing  burlesque  upon  Redemption. 
In  this  whole  region  of  salvation  by  faith  is  the 
Church's  greatest  danger.  Put  together  certain 
modern  reformations,  first,  Conditional  Immortality, 
second.  Perseverance  of  the  Saints,  and  third,  this 
salvation  which  comes  punctually  to  nearly  all  that 
are  hanged,  and  you  have  a  system  against  which 
a  heretic  may  be  the  friend  of  God.  This  book  as- 
sails (i)  the  Trinity  ;  (2)  ghost  life  ;  (3)  un-Adamic 
relations  of  Christ ;  (4)  un-moral  and  merely  believ- 
ing Faith  ;  (5)  Protestant  Justification  ;  (6)  Certain 
Perseverance,  and  (7)  Sovereignty,  hung  like  the 
stars  of  heaven  upon  sovereignty  itself.  Had  it 
been  printed  centuries  ago,  and  had  it  opposed  in 
the  same  strain  (i)  Monkery;  (2)  Martyrdom;  (3) 
the  Wafer ;  (4)  the  Right  of  Kings  ;  (5)  Forgiveness 
by  the  Priest ;  (6)  Intercession  by  the  Dead,  and  (7) 
PvCgeneration  by  the  Rite  of  Baptism,  it  would  have 


Preface,  g 

stood  about  where  this  book  will  now,  except  that 
book  and  pen  would  have  been  alike  given  to  the 
flames. 

Ought  not  the  good  to  look  prayerfully  into  their 
Autos-da-Fe  ? 

What  if  this  book  is  on  the  side  of  the  Redeemer, 
like  that  other? 

Mistake  has  two  treatments,  that  of  Jefferson, 
and  that  of  Luther.  Both  are  surgical  attempts. 
This  last  is  the  gospel's  best  friend.  The  other  is 
the  truth's  worst  enemy.  The  one  cuts  out  the  life. 
The  other  saves  it  by  dissecting  away  the  error. 
May  God  in  His  infinite  mercy  print  for  His  people 
abler  and  better  books,  which  will  make  His  gospel 
more  simple  and  more  moral ;  which  shall  make  His 
sovereignty  more  humane  and  more  holy;  and 
which,  in  these  better  days,  shall  break  the  crust  of 
a  profane  and  old-time  rationalism. 

John  Miller. 
Princeton, /;//;/ 6,  1885. 


CONTENTS 


Page. 

PREFACE, 3 

INTRODUCTION, 19 

BOOK  I. 

Righteousness, 
chapter  i. 

How  Far  all  Men  Agree, 25 

CHAPTER  II. 
The  Word,  Righteousness, 30 

CHAPTER  III. 
Benevolence, 34 

CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Moral  Quality 39 

CHAPTER  V. 
Are  there  more  Righteous  Things  than  Two  ?     .       .       .         42 

CHAPTER  VI. 
The  Highest  Good, 45 

CHAPTER  VII. 
Rewards, 48 


1 2  Contents, 

Page. 
CHAPTER  VIII. 

Sin 49 

CHAPTER  IX. 
The  Greatest  Evil, 52 

CHAPTER  X. 
Punishment, 52 

CHAPTER  XI. 
Sinfulness, 55 

CHAPTER  XII. 
Hell, 56 

CHAPTER  XIII. 
Guilt, 56 

CHAPTER  XIV, 
Vindicatory  Justice, 57 

CHAPTER  XV. 
Confusion  of  Words, 59 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
Pardon, 61 

CHAPTER  XVII. 
Justification, ,        .         63 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 
Obligation 63 

CHAPTER  XIX. 
Occasion  for  Theology, 64 


Contents.  13 


BOOK  II. 

Man. 

Page. 
CHAPTER  I. 

Conscience, 65 

CHAPTER  H. 

All  Else  in  Man, 66 

CHAPTER  HI. 
An  Impaired  Conscience, 69 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Conscience  not  by  Nature  Curable, 70 

CHAPTER  V. 
Singularities  of  Man's  Condition, 71 

CHAPTER  VI. 
The  Bible, 72 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Man's  Origin, ,        .  78 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
Man's  Fall, ,  82 

CHAPTER  IX. 
Man's  Chief  End, 86 

CHAPTER  X. 
Man  in  God's  Image, go 


14  C 071  tents. 


BOOK  III. 
God. 

Page. 
CHAPTER  I. 

God's  Conscience, 92 

CHAPTER  H. 
All  Else  in  God, 93 

CHAPTER  HI. 
Man's  Rights  over  God, 98 

CHAPTER  IV. 
God's  Rights  over  Man, icxs 

CHAPTER  V. 
The  Universe,  the  Best  Possible,    .        .        .        .        .        .        loi 

CHAPTER  VI. 
Each  Creature  the  Best  Possible  for  It,      .        .        .       .        104 

CHAPTER  VII. 
God's  Decrees, 104 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
Anthropomorphism, 108 

CHAPTER  IX. 
Thz  Simplicity  of  God, no 

CHAPTER  X. 
Worship, in 


Contents.  1 5 


BOOK  IV. 

The  God-Man. 

Page. 
CHAPTER  I. 

God's  Chief  End  with  Man, 114 

CHAPTER  H. 

Reasons  for  a  God-Man, 116 

CHAPTER  HI. 
Nature  of  the  Man, 127 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Nature  of  the  God, 129 

CHAPTER  V. 

Redemption, 137 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Justification,         .        .        .    ' 142 

CHAPTER  VII. 
Probation, 152 

CHAPTER  VIII, 

Regeneration,   Sanctification,   Repentance  and  Conver- 
sion,         158 

CHAPTER  IX. 
Faith, 162 

CHAPTER  X. 
Justification  by  Faith,       .        , 172 


1 6  Contents. 

Page. 
CHAPTER  XI. 

Prayer, 178 

CHAPTER  Xn. 
The  Law, 181 

CHAPTER  Xni. 
The  Works  of  the  Law, 184 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

The  Weakness  of  the  Law, 186 

CHAPTER  XV. 
The  Two  Covenants, 188 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
Perseverance, 191 

CHAPTER  XVH. 
History  of  the  Trinity, ,        •        i97 

CHAPTER  XVIH. 
The  Trinity,  if  False,  a  Curse  and  a  Blasphemy,        .        .        205 

<*  ♦  »> 

BOOK  V. 

The  Hereafter. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Death  and  the  Resurrection, 210 

CHAPTER  II. 
Romish  Errors,    .       ,       ,       , 216 


Contents.  1 7 

Page. 
CHAPTER  III. 

Hell  and  Heaven, ,        .        218 

CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Millennium, 227 

^  ♦■  » 

BOOK  VI. 

The  Church  and  its  Ordinances. 

chapter  i. 

The  Church,  a  Visible  Body, 234 

CHAPTER  II. 
The  Church,  Itself  an  Ordinance, 235 

CHAPTER  III. 
The  Church,  of  a  Certain  Form, 237 

CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Church,  a  Republic, 242 

CHAPTER  V. 
Members  of  the  Church, 242 

CHAPTER  VI. 
Officers  of  the  Church, 245 

CHAPTER  VII. 
Councils  of  the  Church, 246 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
Authority  of  the  Church,       ,.,,,,,       248 


1 8  Contents, 

Page. 
CHAPTER  IX. 
A  Call  to  the  Ministry, 251 

CHAPTER  X. 
Preaching, 252 

CHAPTER  XI. 
The  Sacraments,  , 256 

CHAPTER  XII. 
Baptism,  ; 258 

CHAPTER  XIII. 
The  Lord's  Supper, 260 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
The  Old  Evangelical  Church, 263 


INTRODUCTION. 


There  are  two  theologies,  one  that  places  God 
above  morals,  the  other  that  places  morals  above 
God.  The  former  is  more  one,  in  seeming,  with  the 
name,  for  it  makes  everything  centre  in  God  ;  the 
other  is  really  a  universal  ethics,  for  it  makes  every- 
thing centre  in  holiness,  and  makes  God  Himself  a 
subject  of  the  moral  law. 

There  is  no  more  crying  need  in  our  day  than  of 
passage  out  of  one  of  these  theologies  into  the  other. 
That  movement  has  begun,  and  it  becomes  us  to 
help  it  with  every  effort  in  our  power. 

God  above  morals  breeds  such  wickednesses  as 
these  : — 

First,  that  God  is  above  morals  literally,  and  in 
such  a  sense  as  that  "  the  will  of  God  is  the  ground 
of  moral  obligation"  (Hodge,  TheoL,  vol.  i.  p.  405); 

Second,  that  God  is  sovereign  by  a  sovereignty 
that  is  sovereign  in  itself,  and  not  sovereign  because 
He  is  holy  ; 

Third,  that  this  sovereignty  is  with  man  an  innate 
idea,  or,  looked  at  man-ward,  that  we  have  an 
innate  sense  of  responsibility  and  dependence  ; 

Fourth,  that  God  does  as  He  pleases,  and  that  not 
because  He  pleases  to  do   right,  but  by  a  pleasure 


20  IntrodticHon, 

antecedent,  and  because  He  makes  that  right  which 
He  pleases  to  do  ; 

Fifth,  that  He  damns  the  lost  on  account  of 
morals  in  them,  but  not,  in  their  selection  from  the 
beginning,  on  account  of  morals  in  Himself ;  and 
that  the  question  who  the  lost  shall  be,  is  not  a 
question  of  morals,  but  a  question  of  choice,  with 
no  stress  of  obligation,  but  out  of  simple  sovereignty  ; 

Sixth,  that  attending  on  this  choice,  and,  after  a 
sort,  producing  it,  is  what  is  called  electing  love,  a 
sort  of  hybrid  of  the  divines,  which  is  not  moral  in 
the  sense  of  pity  for  all,  or  moral  in  the  sense  of  the 
love  of  the  holy,  but  sovereign,  as  though  there  were 
some  third  commandment,  and  as  though  benevo- 
lence and  the  love  of  holiness  were  all  of  man,  but 
not  all  of  the  conscience  of  the  Almighty; 

Seventh,  that  God  has  made  every  thing  for  Him- 
self; 

Eighth,  that  God's  chief  end  is  the  display  of  His 
perfections ; 

Ninth,  that  vengeance  or  vindicatory  justice, 
original  and  on  its  own  account,  is  wrong  in  man, 
but  right  in  God  ;  and  that  benevolence  and  revenge 
in  the  instance  of  God  are  equal  traits  and  both 
primary ; 

Tenth,  that,  as  above  morals,  faith  saves,  and  not 
a  change  of  moral  condition,  and  that  the  faith  that 
saves  is  believing  of  the  simplest  sort,  or,  incident 
to  this,  a  personal  trust  in  a  described  or  promulged 
Deliverer; 

Eleventh,  that  the  helplessness  that  dooms  is  a 


Intro  due  tion.  2 1 

helplessness  absolute  and  entire  ;  not  disinclination, 
but  something  other  and  more  helpless  ;  and  that 
God  is  so  supreme  that  the  sinner  could  not  if  he 
would  obey  the  gospel ; 

Twelfth,  that,  being  above  morals,  creation  is 
never  the  holiest  and  the  best,  and  that  to  say  that 
it  is,  is  to  stint  omnipotence,  and  to  blind  our  sense 
of  the  sovereignty  of  Heaven  ; 

Thirteenth,  that  reason  is  not  our  highest  guide, 
but  the  Almighty ;  and  that  to  look  for  the  Almighty 
in  our  reason,  and  to  believe  that  reason  is  ourselves, 
and  to  deny  that  we  can  be  guided  by  any  innate 
sense  or  written  word  without  our  reason,  is  to  for- 
sake our  allegiance  to  faith,  and  to  challenge  again 
the  Supremacy  on  High  : 

Lastly,  that  God  speaks  to  us  in  other  ways  than 
through  our  reason,  or  even  through  our  conscience, 
which  is  reason  when  its  subjects  are  moral,  viz.,  by 
some  language  of  His  own,  and  that  that  is  not  by 
awakening  conscience,  or  by  clarifying  reason, 
but  by  such  inexplicable  ways  as  '' the  witness  of 
the  Spirit,"  or  in  that  much  abused  matter,  a  "  call 
to  the  ministry,"  which  are  not  allowed  to  be  our 
best  judgment  in  answer  to  prayer,  but  some  super- 
stitious somewhat  that  offends  away  more  sensible 
believers. 

It  will  be  seen  how  all  these  things  exalt  sove- 
reignty. 

The  reformation  that  is  required  is  one  that  shall 
exalt  holiness. 

I.   Instead  of  the  will  of  God  being  the  ground  of 


21  IntrodMction, 

moral   obligation,    moral   obligation    must    be    the 
ground  of  the  will  of  God. 

2.  Instead  of  God  being  sovereign  by  a  sove- 
reignty that  is  sovereign  in  itself,  He  must  be  made 
sovereign  by  His  holiness. 

3.  Instead  of  a  sense  of  responsibility  being  an 
innate  idea,  it  must  be  shown  that  we  are  not 
responsible  except  to  Holiness. 

4.  Instead  of  God  doing  as  He  pleases,  He  must  do 
infinitely  less  as  He  pleases  than  any  of  His  creatures, 
except  as  He  pleases  to  be  eternally  righteous. 

5.  Instead  of  predestining  the  lost  out  of  naked 
sovereignty.  He  must  not  predestine  them  at  all, 
except  as  decreed  to  Himself  by  His  holiness. 

6.  Instead  of  *'  electing  love "  as  an  original 
affection,  it  must  be  expounded  as  of  an  Eastern 
rhetoric,  whereby  wisdom  is  said  to  love  her  lovers, 
or  they  that  hate  her  to  love  death. 

7.  Instead  of  all  for  Himself,  God  must  be  painted 
as  all  for  holiness. 

8.  Instead  of  display,  God's  chief  end  must  be  His 
glory,  and  that  in  the  Hebrew  sense  of  weight  or 
excellence. 

9.  Instead  of  vengeance,  God's  wrath  and  anger 
and  revenge  must  be  considered  condescensions  to 
our  language,  and  vindicatory  justice  a  terse  expres- 
sion for  describing  the  necessity  to  His  holiness  of 
that  constitutional  instrument — punishment. 

10.  Instead  of  a  faith  arbitrarily  appointed,  exclu- 
sive of  all  morals,  and  anterior  to  the  repentance  of 
the   sinner,  we   are   to   teach  a   faith  which  is  the 


Introduction,  23 

beginning  of  morals,  the  opening  of  the  conscien- 
tious eye,  the  discoverer  of  the  turpitude  of  sin,  the 
receiver,  as  Paul  expresses  it,  of  **  the  love  of  the 
truth  "  (2  Thess.  ii.  10),  and,  therefore,  no  more  the 
queen  than  any  other  grace,  except  that  the  com- 
mon faith  with  which  it  begins,  was  the  mechanical 
guide  which  brought  me  to  the  mercy-seat. 

11.  Instead  of  helplessness  entirely  helpless,  we 
are  to  teach  a  helplessness  scarcely  worthy  of  the 
name  ;  a  helplessness  not  helpless  if  the  sinner  will ; 
the  helplessness,  therefore,  of  being  unwilling ;  a 
helplessness,  hence,  not  arbitrarily  left  to  perish,  but 
consisting  in  the  iniquity  of  refusing  to  submit  to 
rescue. 

12.  Instead  of  its  denying  Omnipotence  to  say 
that  this  universe  is  the  very  best,  we  are  to  ask 
whether  God  would  be  omnipotent  if  He  could  not 
have  it  so. 

13.  Instead  of  denying  reason  in  order  to  submit 
to  sovereignty,  we  are  to  show  that  we  submit  to 
sovereignty  by  exalting  reason  ;  that  reason  is  our 
Urim  and  Thummim ;  that  reason  is  conscience, 
when  in  the  domain  of  morals ;  that  a  renewed  con- 
science, which  is  the  very  essence  of  salvation,  is  but 
the  highest  reason,  made  such  by  the  Spirit  of  God  ; 
and  that  to  deny  conscience  in  order  to  be  devout, 
is  like  extinguishing  life  in  order  to  taste  the  bless- 
ings of  our  highest  being. 

14.  Lastly,  instead  of  superstitious  taints,  we  are 
to  show  a  bright  simplicity.  Instead  of  a  "  call  to 
the  ministry,"  which  hard-headed  men  grope  after  in 


24  Introduction, 

vain,  we  are  to  have  a  supernaturally  directed  choice ; 
a  choice  supernaturally  directed  because  we  have 
asked  on  it  the  direction  of  God  ;  and  we  are  to  have 
'*  a  witness  of  the  Spirit,"  not  mystic,  but  like  the 
other,  through  our  natural  thoughts ;  and  therefore, 
though  all  our  sanctified  life  is  supernatural,  we  are 
to  be  conscious  of  it  in  our  being  better,  and  we  are 
to  be  guided  by  it,  not  by  voices  and  sounds,  or  by 
some  tertium  quid  oi  intimation,  but  by  our  common 
judgment,  on  which  we  have  lovingly  asked  the 
direction  of  the  Almighty. 

It  will  be  seen  from  all  these  points  that  we  pray 
for  a  new  theology  that  will  ask  more  morality  from 
man,  and  ascribe  more  morality  to  God,  and  that  we 
impugn  the  theology  of  the  Reformed  for  having  too 
much  sovereignty,  instead  of  beginning  with  the 
morality  of  God,  and  arguing  down  from  that  to 
His  right  to  govern. 


BOOK  I. 

RIGHTEOUSNESS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

HOW  FAR  ALL  MEN  AGREE. 

The  ultimate  idea  of  this  volume  is,  that  right- 
eousness is  the  highest  good  and  sinfulness  the 
greatest  evil.  The  ultimate  appeal  is  to  conscious- 
ness ;  and,  as  books  cannot  supply  a  consciousness, 
the  sole  office  of  this  work  is  to  open  the  way,  that, 
with  a  proper  arrangement  of  material,  there  may  be 
seen  the  ultimate  reality. 

All  the  religions  of  the  world  give  the  first  place 
to  morality.  If  there  are  any  exceptions,  they  are 
at  the  extremes,  Congoism  on  the  one  hand  and 
Protestant  Christianity  on  the  other. 

A  poor  widow,  sick  and  old,  has  struggled  faith- 
fully, and  has  a  neat  hoard  to  keep  her  from  being  a 
burden.  In  a  moment  of  extreme  pity  she  gives  to 
some  awful  sufferer  half  of  what  she  is  possessed. 
The  fiend,  making  discovery  of  her  store,  breaks  in 
upon  it  at  night,  and  escapes  with  her  whole  living. 

Now,  morals  may  be  endlessly  confused.  Women 
may  drown  children.  Men  may  burn  widows.  Chil- 
dren  may  expose    parents.     And  Jews    may  teach 


26  Righteousness,  [Book  I. 

that  we  are  to  love  our  friends  and  hate  our  enemies. 
There  may  be  endless  dislocation  of  morals,  as  there 
is,  saddest  of  all,  among  ourselves.  But  two  ulti- 
mates  remain,  first,  that  there  is  some  righteousness, 
which  is  everything,  as  between  Heaven  and  Hell,  and 
second,  that  there  is  some  agreement  in  what  it  is, 
as  seen  in  the  light  of  the  aforementioned  picture, 
with  more  or  less  haziness  of  outline,  and  yet  in  its 
reality  as  between  saint  and  devil. 

No  fabulous  scheme  has  dared  to  leave  out  right- 
eousness. 

The  nobler  Paganisms  are  singularly  express.  The 
Rig  Veda — what  would  it  be  without  morals  ?  The 
Zendavesta,  the  Koran,  the  oral  traditions  of  sava- 
ges, all  reek  with  it.  And  our  mistakes  bring  it  into 
light.  We  talk  of  Devil  worship.  But  all  along  the 
Atlantic  coast  no  Guinea  tribe  has  any  such  expres- 
sion. "  Worship  "  comes  from  worthiness  or  worth. 
The  Congoese  would  scorn  that  as  applying  to  the 
Devil.  They  serve  the  Devil.  Their  whole  religion 
is  made  up  of  it.  But  to  call  it  worship  is  absurd. 
They  serve  him  because  he  is  so  wicked.  Nzambi 
is  their  good  Deity.  They  are  purely  monotheist. 
But  Nzambi  is  so  good  that  he  does  not  need  pro- 
pitiation. This  is  thoroughly  understood  by  their 
better  class.  The  gree-gree  and  other  fetich  are  to 
charm  with,  not  to  worship.  And  all  the  attention 
to  demons  is  given,  not  for  their  divine  grace,  but 
for  their  desperate  wickedness. 

This  is  why  badness  among  Christians  is  so  sadly 
undoing  in    missionary  schemes.     They   are  not  so 


Chap.  I.]      Hozu  Far  all  Men  Agree.  27 

confused  as  we  are  about  morality  and  religion. 
Let  me  modify  that : — They  are  more  confused  prac- 
tically, but  not  so  doctrinally  and  theoretically 
bewildered.  We  have  hinted  at  the  strange  likeness 
of  mythological  extremes.  There  is  nothing  higher 
than  Protestant  Christianity.  There  is  nothing  lower 
than  so-called  Devil  worship.  And  yet  it  is  a  part 
of  this  work  to  show  their  points  of  affinity.  Congo 
feels  its  sufferings  more  than  its  sins,  and,  therefore, 
attends  to  the  Devil  more  than  to  the  Almighty. 
There  is  a  Devil  and  there  are  sufferings,  but  there  is 
also  a  glorious  Nzambi,  and  the  only  cure  for  suffer- 
ing would  have  been  to  get  up  to  its  highest  source, 
and  to  lay  hold  of  sin  as  the  very  evil  that  empowers 
and  engenders  Belial. 

This  Congo  does  not  do. 

And,  infamously  like  them,  are  the  Reformed. 
We  lay  hold  of  lower  truths.  Hell  is  painful,  no 
doubt,  but  its  curse  is  wickedness.  God  has  sover- 
eignty, no  doubt,  but  its  source  is  holiness.  Just 
as  the  Congo  man  settles  upon  his  pain  and  forgets 
his  wickedness,  so  we  of  the  Church  imitate  his 
devil.  We  have  a  Deity  of  pain  and  a  Deity  of 
power,  and  forget  that  both  power  and  pain  are  the 
results  of  higher  things,  viz.,  on  either  hand,  of 
holiness  and  sinfulness. 

We  are  certain  that  this  is  not  an  exaggerated 
view. 

The  Guinea  worshipper  applies  himself  to  the 
Devil,  leaving  Nzambi  unslandered  and  undisturbed. 
The  Protestant  worshipper  unseats  Nzambi  himself ; 


28  Righteousness.  [Book  I. 

seats  a  Sovereign,  made  a  sovereign  on  other  than  a 
moral  base;  and  then  worships  Him,  not  with  an  eel- 
skin  or  a  tooth,  but  with  something  more  cunningly 
devised — a  faith,  not  made  such  by  its  love,  and  a 
trust  (precisely  as  to  the  eel-skin),  to  a  theoretic  and 
explained,  but  not  morally  adored  Deliverer. 

Now,  to  the  remedy  of  all  this,  this  work,  with 
what  light  it  can  get,  addresses  itself.  It  wishes  to 
abase  sovereignty  and  exalt  holiness,  and  then,  as  a 
result,  to  exalt  a  sovereignty  that  consists  in  holi- 
ness. It  wishes  to  ascribe  more  morality  to  God,  and 
to  demand  more  morality  of  man,  and  in  this  way 
to  bring  Christianity  nearer  to  the  other  great  faiths  ; 
and  then,  to  sunder  it  infinitely  far  aloof  by  showing 
that  it  has  something  in  court  which  no  other  reli- 
gion has,  viz.,  redemption,  and  has  something  in  the 
heart  to  which  no  other  religion  is  fitted,  viz.,  bettcr- 
ness  of  life,  and  a  Christ-produced  morality  which 
consists  in  homely  character,  and  which  has  no  other 
distinction  than  this,  that  it  was  a  growing  better,  and 
that  it  grows  continually  better  in  answer  to  prayer, 
and  in  response  to  the  effort  of  the  Christian  to  fol- 
low his  Redeemer. 

If  any  man  grows  better,  he  will  be  saved.  In 
answer  to  the  question,  Would  any  man  grow  better 
without  a  redemption?  I  say,  unquestionably  never, 
any  more  than  Satan.  In  answer  to  the  question. 
Would  any  man  be  saved  without  knowing  of  a 
Redeemer?  I  say.  What  do  we  mean  by  knowing? 
Peter  knew  very  little ;  Abraham  still  less ;  Adam 
scarcely  anything.     John  instigated  his  mother  to 


Chap.  I.]      How  Far  all  Men  Agree,  29 

office-seeking  under  the  new  Chief  Magistracy  of 
Israel!  What  did  Andrew  know  when  he  was  re- 
turning to  his  fishing  nets?  And  yet  he  was  a  con- 
verted man.  Morality  is  of  the  essence  of  religion. 
If  a  man  is  more  moral,  he  is  a  Christian,  for  that 
change  can  come  in  no  other  way.  If  a  man  asks 
to  be  made  moral,  and  appeals,  in  his  efforts  to  be 
better,  to  the  mercy  of  his  Maker,  and  perseveres 
in  that,  where  was  Job's  chance  a  better  one.?  The 
question  is  not.  Who  will  God  pardon?  but  Who  are 
like  to  ask  ?  Christians  are  few  enough  under  the 
gospel ;  they  would  be  infinitely  fewer  without  it. 
But  God  has  really  answered  the  question,  for  when 
a  Pagan  captain,  as  a  rare  fact,  ''gave  much  alms  to 
the  people,  and  prayed  to  God  always,"  though  as 
to  his  chiefest  chances  he  had  little  more  than 
lighted  upon  the  coast,  and  was  from  Italy  with  his 
garrison,  yet  Peter  was  inspired  to  say,  ''  In  every 
nation,  he  that  feareth  God  and  worketh  righteous- 
ness is  accepted  of  Him." 

We  are  not  zealous  to  show  that  any  heathen  was 
ever  saved.  But  we  are  zealous  to  show  that  no 
heathen  was  ever  lost  who  became  a  better  man  ; 
and  that  no  Christian  was  ever  saved  except  in  the 
act  of  becoming  better,  and  that  this  act  was  not 
the  consequence  of  faith,  but  faith  itself,  the  loving 
acceptance  of  a  morally  excellent  Redeemer. 


30  Righteousness,  [Book  I. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE   WORD,    RIGHTEOUSNESS. 

Taste  is  the  mind  as  it  discovers  beauty.  Con- 
science is  the  mind  as  it  discovers  righteousness. 
It  might  be  imagined  that  these  two  things  have 
equal  boundaries,  but  nothing  could  be  further  from 
the  truth.  Beauty  is  a  word  used  almost  capri- 
ciously. Color  and  flavor  and  odor  have  each  ex- 
quisite delicacy.  Why  should  a  color  have  beauty, 
and  not  a  smell  ?  The  taste  of  a  peach  seems  near 
enough  allied  to  its  fragrance,  and  both  to  elegancies 
of  sense  that  go  by  the  name  of  beautiful. 

Things  that  are  beautiful,  too,  are  so  utterly  dif- 
ferent. A  sound  and  a  sight  and  a  face  and  a  song 
and  an  arch  and  a  sum  in  arithmetic  are  all  ranked 
under  the  same  attribute  of  taste.  It  is  not  so  with 
conscience.  It  has  not  even  the  colors  of  the  rain- 
bow. Conscience  looks  out  upon  one  light,  and, 
therefore,  if  righteousness  is  the  highest  good,  it  is  a 
great  thing  to  know  that  it  is  but  one  thing.  We 
are  not  to  be  confused  by  its  endless  vocabulary. 
The  moral  idea  is,  literally  speaking,  unitary.  Good- 
ness, truth,  wisdom,  righteousness,  uprightness,  holi- 
ness, piety,  moral  excellence,  rectitude,  virtue,  are 
endlessly  different  in  their  adjuncts,  especially  in  their 
mistakes,  but  as  far  as  they  are  used  for  morality, 
have  but  one  morality.  There  are  a  million  of  right 
things,  but  the  Tightness  of  them  is  but  a  single 
quality,  and  it  has  been  a  great  snare  in  the  Church 


Chap.  II.]      The    Wo7^d,  Righteottsiiess.  31 

to  suppose  that  the  wrecks  of  virtue  in  the  Devil, 
and  its  perfectness  in  God,  and  its  want  in  Hell,  and 
its  fulness  in  the  Heavens,  are  anything  else  than 
the  want  or  the  fulness  or  the  perfectness  of  but  the 
one  thing — that  moral  quality  which  is  a  perfect 
unit  in  the  consciousness  of  the  creature. 

Now  we  shall  be  clearing  this  when  we  say  that 
righteousness  is  really  three  words. 

Righteousness  is  not  the  highest  good  in  its 
simple  and  most  seminal  conception.  All  these 
moral  terms,  like  a  shut  ring,  can  be  divided  into 
three.  Righteousness,  first  and  foremost,  is  a  quality, 
as  when  we  say.  The  righteousness  of  love  or  kind- 
ness. Righteousness  derivatively  from  that,  is  the 
thing  that  is  righteous,  that  is,  the  love  or  kindness 
itself.  And  righteousness  still  differently  from  that, 
is  the  habit  of  having  such  feelings,  or  the  character 
of  those  who  continually  feel  that  way.  It  is  the 
original  thing,  therefore,  and  at  the  start  of  the 
moral  idea,  that  a  feeling  should  have  righteousness. 
It  is  the  second  thing,  and  a  linguistic  flight  from 
the  other,  that  a  feeling  should  <^f  righteousness;  but 
third,  that  the  habit  of  having  the  feeling,  or,  in 
other  words,  the  character,  should  be  called  righteous- 
ness. So  that  there  are  three  righteousnesses,  of 
course  altogether  different :  of  which  we  can  pick 
out  the  last  and  say  that  the  word  in  this  last  sense 
is  the  term  for  the  highest  good,  whether  in  God  or 
man. 

There  are  two  other  uses  of  the  word:  (i)  one  is 
reasonable,  and  it  is  found  in  Scripture  ;  (2)  the  other 


32  Righteoitsiiess.  [Book  I. 

is  spurious,  and  should  be  corrected,  and  has  been 
bred  of  the  excesses  of  the  Reformed  theology. 

(i)  The  use  that  is  reasonable  is  of  these  moral 
words  as  applied  on  earth.  We  are  none  of  us 
righteous.  The  strength  of  this  statement  is  entire. 
The  noblest  Christian  not  only  sins,  he  does  nothing 
else.  The  philosophy  is  plain.  There  is  but  one 
virtue,  and  this  inheres  in  two  feelings,  benevolence 
on  the  one  hand  and  the  love  of  virtue  on  the  other. 
The  Christian  comes  short  in  both :  and  as  sin  is 
nothing  else  than  coming  short  in  either,  he  is  never 
righteous  in  the  least,  unless  that  term  is  used  in 
some  accommodated  way  which  is  other  than  its 
strict  significance. 

Rather  than  not  use  it  at  all,  men  call  good  nat- 
ural characters  upright,  and  the  Bible,  entering  upon 
our  use,  applies  all  moral  encomiums  to  men  who 
strictly  deserve  not  a  single  one  of  them. 

Thus  we  hear  of  saints  and  the  devout  ;  men  are 
called  righteous  and  holy ;  Job  was  perfect  and  up- 
right ;  ''  Now  ye  are  clean,"  said  Christ  to  a  family 
of  sinners.  We  call  an  impenitent  man  upright 
when  he  is  better  than  his  neighbors,  and  a  sinner 
righteous  when  he  is  better  than  he  used  to  be  ; 
and  as  long  as  this  is  understood,  it  all  goes  well, 
though  it  leads  sometimes  to  Pelagian  ideas. 

(2)  But  there  is  another  sense  which  is  different. 
Men  imagine  that  it  is  common.  Older  lexicons 
conceive  that  it  is  primary.  I  mean  the  sense  of 
righteousness  as  that  which  satisfies  a  court,  or 
might    hold    me   perfectly  righteous,  though    I    be 


Chap.  I  I.J      Tlie    Word,  Righteousness.  33 

wicked.  This  is  a  modern  solecism.  There  is  not 
a  trace  of  it  in  any  language.  If  any  one  cries  out 
with  indignation,  let  him  justify  his  outcry  by  a 
single  instance.  Imperatively  as  men  believe  that 
the  Bible  is  full  of  it,  no  literature,  Bible,  or  other- 
wise, ever  imagined  it.  Nothing  justifies  a  man 
except  his  own  righteousness  :  I  mean  a  righteous- 
ness pretended  or  imparted,  and  that,  more  or  less 
perfectly,  as  his  own  attainment. 

We  hear  of  justifying  the  wicked,  but  it  means 
pretending  that  he  is  not  wicked.  We  justify  God, 
but  that  means  literally,  telling  the  unvarnished 
truth.  We  justify  ourselves,  but  that  means  lyingly, 
telling  the  unvarnished  falsehood.  The  publican  was 
justified,  but  the  Bible  explains  it :  he  was  actually 
righteous,  or,  in  earth's  accommodated  language, 
made  righteous  rather  than  the  other.  There  is  no 
syllable,  sacred  or  profane  (always  excepting  the 
Reformed  theology),  that  takes  a  man  clean  out  of 
himself,  and  makes  over  to  him  a  righteousness  as 
God's  mode  of  justifying. 

There  is  no  man  more  earnest  than  we  to  insist 
upon  that  one  thing,  a  forensic  ransom.  But  it  is 
one  thing,  not  two.  Make  over  to  me  the  sufferings 
of  Christ,  and  what  are  they  unless  I  am  pardoned  ? 
And  give  me  pardon,  and  what  is  all  that  unless  I 
am  delivered  ?  And  give  me  deliverance,  must  it 
not  be  from  sin?  And  deliver  me  from  sin,  and 
must  not  that  be  imperfect  righteousness  on  earth, 
and  perfect  righteousness  in  the  garden  of  the 
blessed  ?     Righteousness,    therefore,    never  satisfies 


34  Righteousness,  [Book  I. 

law  except  it  be  my  own  ;  and  it  never  satisfies  law, 
therefore,  until  it  is  perfect.  Before  that,  satisfac- 
tion is  made  by  the  sulTerings  of  Christ ;  and  even 
after  that,  my  own  perfect  righteousness  satisfies  the 
law,  but  not  for  the  past.  My  own  perfect  right- 
eousness, even  in  heaven,  is  kept  up  in  me  through 
the  forgiveness  of  the  past,  and  that  remembered 
Sacrifice  who  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for 
me.   . 

CHAPTER  III. 

BENEVOLENCE. 

We  have  seen  that  all  men  admire  righteousness, 
and  that  few  dream  of  a  God  in  no  wise  possessed 
of  it.  We  have  seen  that  righteousness  is  a  single 
quality,  with  no  variations  such  as  are  found  in 
beauty,  and  that  an  immense  moral  vocabulary, 
virtue,  uprightness  and  such  like,  are  all  unitary. 
Conscience  has  but  one  light,  and  is  not  even,  like  the 
eye,  capable  of  dividing  the  light  into  an  immen- 
sity of  colorings.  Yet  though  righteousness  is  but 
a  single  quality,  we  have  seen  that  by  the  incidents 
of  speech,  it  resolves  itself  into  three  expressions. 
First,  it  is  a  quality  of  feelings  ;  second,  it  is  the 
feelings  themselves  ;  and  third,  it  is  the  character 
that  may  possess  them,  but  we  can  never  too  much 
insist  that  the  character  that  may  possess  the  feel- 
ings, and  the  feelings  that  may  possess  the  quality, 
can  never  be  so  varied  as  to  destroy  the  fact  that 
the  whole  of  the  ricrhteousness  of  Heaven,  and  the 


Chap.  III.]  Benevolence.  ^^ 

whole  of  the  unrighteousness  of  Hell,  are  built  upon 
the  presence  or  else  the  absence  of  a  certain  char- 
acter of  beings  that  shall  possess  feelings  of  a  cer- 
tain quality. 

Now,  what  are  those  feelings  ? 
And  first  and  foremost  comes  benevolence. 
Let  us  examine  this  to  the  very  bottom. 
There  is  no  good  in  the  universe  except  in  feel- 
ing. The  universe  would  be  all  a  waste  except  for 
that  phenomenon  which  we  call  emotion.  Matter, 
which  is  the  hugest  mass,  never  would  have  been 
worth  existence  except  for  life.  And  life  in  the  next 
hugest  mass,  viz.,  in  the  flora  of  the  universe,  would 
have  been  idle  for  lack  of  sentient  living.  Here  again 
would  have  been  waste  if  what  was  sentient  was  not 
emotional.  The  highest  archangel,  if  he  did  but 
think,  would  be  a  bauble.  God  would  be  without  an 
object.  If  God  Himself  were  naked  intellect  He 
would  be  a  failure.  It  must  be  the  emotional  part 
of  everything  that  constitutes  its  end.  And,  there- 
fore, that  one  attribute  of  all  thinking,  viz.,  that  it 
is  emotional,  constitutes  its  benefit,  and  is  the  only 
reason  why  matter  and  plants  should  have  been  con- 
ceived of  or  brought  into  our  vision. 

Now  emotions  are  of  two  kinds  ;  but  as  pain  can 
only  be  instrumentally  good,  pleasure  is  the  only 
great  end  for  which  the  universe  came  into  beino-. 

But  here  is  a  great  danger.  Some  of  the  vilest 
forms  of  ethics  are  those  that  teach  that  our  true 
end  is  happiness. 

Let  us  proceed  carefully. 


36  Righteousness.  [Book  I. 

For  that  part  of  creation  capable  of  having  pleas- 
ure, having  the  pleasure  and  loving  to  have  it  are 
very  nearly  the  same.  We  have  only  to  attempt  the 
idea  of  a  man  thoroughly  happy  and  }^et  not  loving 
to  be  so,  to  see  how  necessary  the  thought  is  of  lov- 
ing our  own  happiness. 

But  we  pass  the  frontier  at  once,  and  get  out  of 
the  region  of  the  necessary,  when  we  think  of  other 
people's  happiness.  What  is  another  man's  happi- 
ness to  me  ?  It  may  be  tangled  with  m.ine,  and  then 
I  will  desire  it.  But  loving  to  be  happy  and  loving 
that  my  neighbor  be,  are  two  things  quite  different. 
I  may  see  the  good  to  my  neighbor,  and  seethe  good 
to  the  universe,  and  have  the  whole  picture  of  other 
men's  distress  vividly  before  me  in  its  actual  evil, 
but  to  desire  it  different  is  a  thing  altogether  by 
itself.  No  reasoning  can  create  it.  It  is  the  first 
moral  emotion.  There  belongs  to  it  what  we  have 
called  righteousness,  and  it  is  an  emotion  by  itself, 
a  thing  of  another  substance  from  anything  we  can 
feel  in  regard  to  our  own  felicity. 

If  I  say,  I  like  my  own  happiness  for  that  is  nat- 
ural, but  I  like  other  people's  happiness  through 
the  supernatural  and  as  a  gift  of  my  Creator,  I  err ; 
one  is  no  more  supernatural  than  the  other.  I  was 
born  for  both.  To  see  red  and  to  see  right  are  both 
gifts  of  my  Creator.  If  I  have  fallen  from  the  right, 
and  that  becomes  a  supernatural  condition  of  my 
spirit,  then  to  restore  me  to  what  is  right  is  super- 
natural. But  to  love  my  own  happiness  and  to  love 
my  neighbor's  happiness  are  both  natural,  only  one 


Chap.  III.]  Benevolence,  37 

could  never  have  been  different,  and  the  other  has 
become  different,  or  else  it  might  universally  have 
been  supposed  to  be  necessary,  like  the  other. 

Here  then  is  an  emotion  for  which  I  can  give  no 
reason.  It  is  a  reason  by  itself.  I  am  conscious  of 
it.  And  I  am  conscious  of  it  as  a  pleasure.  And 
now  I  am  conscious  of  two  other  things  about  it, 
and  I  wish  to  be  very  careful  in  bringing  those  two 
things  to  the  front  of  our  discussion. 

I.  First,  on  grounds  that  I  cannot  give  by  any  pro- 
cess of  argument,  it  is  the  highest  pleasure  in  the 
universe. 

I  can  state  why  it  ought  to  be,  and  why  it  is  very 
important  that  it  should  be.  And  that  is  for  the 
reason  that  the  world  would  be  a  hell  without  it. 
It  would  be  like  physical  worlds  with  no  gravitation. 
The  highest  pleasure  would  bg  gone.  That  would 
be  one  loss.  And  all  other  appetites  would  be  let 
loose,  so  that  the  raging  Pit  would  be  a  paradise  in 
contrast  with  the  ruin.  But  even  this  would  not 
prove  benevolence  to  be  the  highest  pleasure — in  fact 
would  not  hint  at  it.  It  must  be  highest  in  itself. 
But  you  cannot  prove  such  things.  No  man  will 
question  that  the  happiness  of  conscience  is  the  very 
highest  happiness  that  can  be  dreamed  of  in  our 
being. 

2.  Let  us  be  still  more  careful. 

Is  it  because  it  is  the  highest  happiness  that  right- 
eousness becomes  what  it  is — righteousness  ?  It 
might  seem  so.  The  end  of  the  universe  is  emotion. 
The  good  of  emotion  is  a  pleasure.     The  quality  of 


o 


8  Righteousness.  [Book  I. 


a  certain  pleasure  is  its  righteousness.  And  the 
only  righteous  pleasure  that  we  have  yet  consid- 
ered is  benevolence.  How  then  do  we  stop  from 
the  result  that  righteousness  consists  in  pleasure, 
though  it  be  a  very  high  one  ? 

We  have  already  hinted  at  the  idea  that  there 
may  be  something  better  in  a  pleasure  than  its 
pleasurableness.  My  pleasure  in^the  stars  may  be 
less  than  my  pleasure  at  a  feast,  and  yet  the  less 
may  be  better  than  the  greater.  This  now  is  the 
whole  secret  of  morals.  Benevolence  is  a  simple 
pleasure.  It  is  not  right  outside  of  its  conscious 
pleasantness.  It  is  my  love  of  my  neighbor's  wel- 
fare, or,  to  stick  to  the  same  language,  my  pleasure 
at  it,  that  constitutes  my  righteousness  in  the  acts 
that  may  flow  from  this  feeling  of  happiness. 

But  now  I  think  it^can  be  seen  that  there  is  more 
in  this  feeling  of  happiness  than  its  happiness  that 
constitute  it  right.  I  say  to  a  lad  that  plays  mar- 
bles, you  ought  to  quit  that  and  look  up  at  this  beau- 
tiful Apollo — and  the  lad  goes  on  playing  marbles. 
Because  he  is  happier  does  that  make  my  speech  to 
him  meaningless?  One  pleasure  is  nobler  than  an- 
other. And  if  that  reigns  in  the  region  of  taste,  does 
it  not  still  more  distinctly  in  the  sphere  of  morals  ? 
There  is  an  aroma  to  every  pleasure.  Like  the 
peach  or  like  the  rose,  there  is  a  flavor  to  the  hap- 
piness which  each  pleasant  thing  offers  to  the  sense. 
It  is  a  flavor  which  the  sense  only  can  consider.  And 
so  of  benevolence.  There  is  a  flavor  to  it  distin- 
guishable to  the  taste,  and  that  flavor  is  like  nothing 


Chap.  IV.]  The  Moral  Quality.  39 

else,  carrying  the  idea  of  nobiii.ty  and  obligation,  and 
ministering  to  the  man  an  imperativeness  of  the 
right  which  will  actually  drive  him  into  unhappiness 
in  order  to  indulge  it.  It  is  not  that  the  benevo- 
lence is  not  all  pleasure,  or  the  very  highest  form  of 
pleasure,  but  that  it  is  right  apart  from  its  pleasur- 
ableness,  and  such  consciously  in  its  form  of  pleas- 
urableness  as  to  become  excellent  in  itself,  and  so 
consciously  good  as  to  become  good  other  than 
happy,  and,  as  we  shall  see,  the  highest  and  the  best 
even  for  our  Maker. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE    MORAL    QUALITY- 

It  will  be  remarked  that  we  have  not  said  that 
benevolence  is  the  only  thing  that  possesses  the 
moral  quality.  The  moral  quality  is  but  one,  and 
the  conscience  that  is  conscious  of  it  is  but  one 
faculty  of  the  mind  ;  but  righteousness,  it  will  be 
seen,  is  the  quality  of  another  thing  beside  the  feel- 
ing of  benevolence.  This  it  is  important  to  show, 
because  Edwards,  when  he  inoculated  New  England 
thought  with  the  expression,  "  All  virtue  consisteth 
in  benevolence,"  sinned  in  two  particulars, — first, 
virtuousness  is  not  a  feeling  at  all,  but  a  quality, 
and  second,  it  is  a  quality,  not  of  one  feeling  alone, 
viz.,  benevolence,  but  of  that  and  still  another,  and 
what  that  other  feeling  is  is  now  the  important 
point  in  an  improved  theology. 

If  I  say,  I  am  happy  and  love  to  be,  T  am  not  say- 


40  Righteousness.  [Book  I. 

ing  more  in  one  part  of  that  sentence  than  I  say  in 
the  other ;  but  if  I  say,  I  am  happy  and  love  others 
to  be,  the  case  is  altogether  different.  I  have  taken 
a  tremendous  stride  from  that  which  is  utterly  with- 
out morals,  to  that  which  is  the  first  beginning  of 
the  whole  system  of  morality  itself.  I  cannot  rea- 
son myself  into  such  a  feeling.  The  world  would 
perish  without  benevolence.  That  could  not  make 
me  benevolent.  It  could  be  shown  that  this  affec- 
tion of  the  creature  is  the  greatest  treasure  of  his 
history.  That  could  not  create  it.  Benevolence  is 
an  original  feeling  ;  given  of  God  ;  experienced  by 
conscience  ;  and  so  conceived  of  by  conscience  that 
the  quality  of  it  is  so  conceived  ;  in  other  words,  the 
same  conscience  that  has  the  benevolence,  sees 
its  quality  ;  and  this  perception  of  its  quality  is 
just  as  much  from  conscience  as  the  benevolence 
itself. 

There  emerges,  therefore,  into  our  discussion  two 
feelings,  one  a  love  of  others,  and  the  other  a  love 
of  the  quality  of  this  affection  itself.  Both  of  these 
are  righteous.  There  are,  therefore,  two  right- 
eous feelings,  one,  the  feeling  of  benevolence, 
and  the  other,  which  can  easily  be  confounded 
with  it,  the  love  of  this  affection.  Positively  these 
are  not  the  same.  The  love  of  others'  welfare  and 
the  love  of  this  as  excellent  are  obviously  different 
affections.  And  now,  if  ^ve  give  breadth  to  this  lat- 
ter by  saying  that  we  love  in  turn  this  love,  and 
then  love  in  turn  this,  we  go  feeling  back  and  find 
that  there  are  two  loves  that   possess  morality,  one 


Chap.  IV.]  The  Moral  Quality.  41 

the  love  of  the  welfare  of  others,  and  the  other  the 
love  of  the  quality  itself  which  is  first  seen  in  the 
benevolent  thought,  and  afterwards  in  our  admiration 
of  the  introspected  righteousness. 

This  is  Christ's  ethics.  When  He  tells  us  to  love 
our  neighbor,  that  means  benevolence,  and  when  He 
tells  us  to  love  God,  that  means  the  other  ;  for  God 
is  embodied  righteousness.  And  this  latter  com- 
mandment is  more  imperative  than  the  former.  For, 
to  love  our  neighbor  is  good,  but  to  love  this  love 
is  better;  for  the  very  highest  affection  of  God  is  to 
love  what  is  moral,  sovereignly  and  with  all  the  heart. 

But  how,  it  may  be  asked,  if  the  quality  is  only 
one,  and  conscience  always  the  same,  can  different 
feelings  be  experienced  by  conscience,  and  one  of 
them  be  stronger  and  more  imperative  than  the 
other  ?  We  easily  answer,  The  differences  are  not 
merely  two,  but  many.  The  Tightness  of  a  thing  is 
of  all  degrees.  It  is  more  sinful  to  lie  than  to  loaf.  If 
I  tease  a  fly,  that  is  a  less  wicked  thing  than  to  mur- 
der. And  yet  who  shall  say  that  in  the  virtues  corres- 
ponding to  these  sins,  there  is  a  different  conscience 
to  take  note,  and  a  different  quality  in  every  one  of 
them  ? 

So  then  we  have  reached  the  results  that  right- 
eousness is  a  moral  quality ;  that  conscience  takes 
note  of  it ;  that  it  is  a  quality  which  is  but  one  ;  that 
it  belongs  to  two  emotions  ;  that  one  of  these  is 
benevolence,  and  that  the  other  and  more  impera- 
tive is  the  love  of  what  is  moral,  or  the  affection  of 
conscience  for  the  right  quality  itself. 


42  Righteousness,  [Book  I. 

CHAPTER  V. 

ARE   THERE   MORE   RIGHTEOUS    THINGS    THAN     TWO? 

To  clear  away  embarrassments,  let  us  pass  our 
eye  over  the  whole  field  of  morals,  and  ask  whether 
there  be  anything  that  has  the  quality  of  righteous- 
ness except  the  two  feelings  that  have  just  been 
noted.  If  anyone  should  say,  There  are  more  than 
five  senses,  we  would  not  refute  him  by  standing 
over  the  five  and  arguing  by  anything  that  we  saw 
in  them  that  there  could  not  be  others  ;  but,  we 
would  command  him  to  bring  on  the  sixth.  And  so 
in  this  region  of  morals.  Benevolence  is  no  doubt 
right,  and  so  is  the  love  of  it,  and  the  love  of  this 
last  love,  and  the  love  of  any  affection  which  is 
started  in  this  region  of  benevolence.  Benevolence, 
therefore,  and  the  love  of  the  quality  of  righteous- 
ness are  undoubtedly  righteous.  Is  anything  right- 
eous but  these  two  affections? 

Now,  no  mortal  denies  that  justice  and  chastity 
and  truthfulness  are  righteous,  and  that  what  is 
righteous  in  them  are  feelings,  and,  therefore,  that 
there  might  seem  to  be  other  feelings  that  are 
righteous  besides  benevolence  and  the  love  of  the 
quality  that  is  in  it.  But  when  we  look  at  the  whole 
herd  of  righteousnesses  such  as  these  last,  we  soon 
find  that  they  have  one  very  surprising  difference 
from  the  tv/o  that  we  are  putting  forward,  and  that 
is  that  they  admit  of  exceptions.  I  am  not  to  lie. 
But  give  me  an  enemy  to  deal  with,  and  I    may  lay 


Chap.  V.]   Only  Two  Righteous  Things,  43 

an  ambush,  or  display  false  signals,  and  find  a  war- 
rant for  it  even  in  the  word  of  God.  I  am  not  to 
kill,  but  I  may  hang  a  traitor,  or  kill  my  son,  like 
the  patriarch  Abraham.  I  am  not  to  steal,  but  I 
am  to  take  the  widow's  last  mite  in  the  exigencies 
of  some  important  service.  I  can  make  no  such 
exceptions  to  benevolence.  Nor  can  I  disesteem 
holiness  for  any  motive  under  Heaven.  And  this 
leads  to  the  superb  solution.  The  exceptions  are 
at  the  call  of  these  two,  and,  therefore,  the  virtues 
themselves  are  these  two.  Chastity  and  patriotism 
and  honesty  and  gratitude  and  faithfulness  are  but 
benevolence  and  that  sister  feeling  cast  into  their 
endless  forms.  We  might  have  modesty  about  this 
were  it  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  But  where 
Moses  distinctly  states  it,  and  Christ  announces  it 
anew,  and  Paul  argues  about  it  and  reiterates  it  and 
gives  its  reasons,  we  need  have  no  modesty  and  no 
pause  as  to  the  facts  whatever.  Moses  distinctly 
intimates  that  ten  are  two  in  the  region  of  morals. 
Christ  echoes  the  fact  and  expands  it.  He  holds 
that  all  religion  is  in  this  region  of  Sinai.  And  he 
packs  it  into  one  expression  ;  finding  the  whole  of 
faith  to  be  embraced  in  a  single  volume,  he  finds  all 
that  volume  to  have  exhausted  itself  upon  these 
two  emotions ;  for  he  says,  "  On  these  two  com- 
mandments hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets." 

We  come  down  to  the  days  of  Paul,  and  he  throws 
it  into  a  philosophic  mould.  "  He  that  loveth 
another  hath  fulfilled  the  law."  He  expands  it  into 
acts,  "  Thou  shalt  not  commit   adultery,  thou   shalt 


44  Righteousness.  [Book  I. 

not  steal,  thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness,  thou 
shalt  not  covet,  and  if  there  be  any  other  command- 
ment, it  is  briefly  comprehended  in  this  saying, 
namely,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself." 
And  then  he  gives  his  reasons, — ''  Love  worketh  no 
ill  to  his  neighbor,"  will  not  dishonor,  will  not  kill, 
will  not  rob,  will  not  deceive,  will  not  unbenevolently 
covet,  "  therefore  "  (and  this  is  as  clear  metaphysics 
as  anything  in  the  Bible),  for  this  definite  reason, 
love  is  the  whole  of  morals  (Rom.  xiii.  8-10). 

Chastity  is  not  a  separate  righteousness,  but  an 
order  of  the  Almighty,  and  for  the  welfare  of  the 
people.  Cain  will  marry  his  sister  for  kindred 
reasons.  Self-love  is  not  a  righteousness  at  all. 
Natural  affection  would  not  be,  except  as  a  height- 
ened benevolence.  Love  to  God  is  for  His  holiness. 
Love  to  the  good  is  for  theirs  and  for  benevolence 
also.  Love  to  honesty  or  love  to  justice  is  for  kin- 
dred reasonings.  There  is  not  a  virtue  among  the 
twenty  millions  which  has  not  exceptions  to  its 
decisions,  and  whose  exceptions  are  not  determined 
by  the  two  great  original  righteousnesses,  to  wit, 
benevolence  and  a  love  of  the  quality  of  virtuous- 
ness. 

If  any  one  asks,  Is  not  this  second  but  a  varying 
of  the  first?  I  say.  By  no  means.  It  could  not 
exist  without  the  first.  Benevolence  must  show  its 
bright  sides  before  I  can  stand  enamored.  But  the 
fact  of  being  enamored  is  different  from  the  fact  of 
my  benevolence.  I  admire  my  being  enamored, 
and,  after  that,  I  admire  my  admiration.     No  moral 


Chap.  VI.]  The  Highest  Good.  45 

sentiment  could  arise  without  benevolence.  But 
after  that  sentiment  has  arisen,  I  admire  it  as  a  thing 
by  itself.  And  I  admire  it  as  more  imperative  to 
me  than  the  very  welfare  of  my  neighbor  in  the 
very  love  of  which  it  must  originate. 

CHAPTER   VI. 

THE    HIGHEST    GOOD. 

All  good  being  an  emotion,  and  all  emotion,  to 
be  a  good,  needing  to  be  a  pleasure  and  not  a  pain, 
it  might  seem  to  follow  that  benevolence  and  the 
still  higher  love,  being  the  highest  pleasures,  were, 
in  that  very  fact  the  "highest  good. 

An  angel  on  high  would  scoff  at  any  pleasure  that 
would  contrast  itself  with  the  love  of  the  Almighty. 

But  here  we  put  in  two  demurrers.  In  the  first 
place,  love  is  an  evanescent  feeling.  Ten  million 
acts  of  affection,  even  acts  of  an  angel,  would  pass 
and  be  forgotten.  His  character  would  remain.  It 
is  an  easy  sum  in  arithmetic  to  argue  that  character 
is  more  than  act ;  and,  therefore,  we  move  easily  to 
the  idea  that  righteousness  in  the  third  sense,  that 
is  the  character  of  the  God  or  of  the  angel  that 
feels  the  emotion,  is  a  higher  good  than  one  right- 
eous thought,  or  than  ten  million  of  ages  of  affec- 
tion which  one  day  or  other  shall  pass  and  end. 

But,  secondly,  nor  is  pleasure  as  pleasure  the 
highest  good.  Righteousness  is  the  highest  form  of 
pleasure,  but  it  is  best  irrespective  of  its  pleasantness. 
There  is  a  nobility  in  benevolence  above  its  nature 


46  Righteousness,  [Book  I. 

as  being  happy.  We  may  attempt  to  describe  this. 
We  may  call  it  obligation.  But  this  has  partly  to 
do  with  what  the  Almighty  threatens.  Righteous- 
ness is  our  duty.  But  with  all  the  forms  of  speech 
we  do  not  get  beyond  this  thought,  that  benevo- 
lence has  a  certain  form  of  pleasurableness  that  has 
a  nobility  of  pleasantness  above  the  pleasantness 
itself;  that  the  discoverer  of  this  excellence  is  con- 
science ;  and  that  we  can  no  more  describe  on  paper 
the  excellence  of  righteousness,  than  we  can  describe 
the  blueness  of  the  sky,  or  paint  the  beauty  of  some 
awakening  melody.  What  we  have  arrived  at  is 
simply  this,  that  a  character  for  righteousness  is  bet- 
ter than  its  acts,  and  that  a  character  for  righteous- 
ness is  the  highest  good  either  for  man  or  the 
Almighty. 

If  a  character  for  righteousness  is  the  highest  good 
for  the  Almighty,  we  bring  an  end  at  a  blow  to  cer- 
tain miserable  solecisms.  "  God  has  made  all  things 
for  Himself  ""^  it  has  been  ventured;  and  this 
Almighty  selfishness  has  been  reduced  at  once  by 
our  idea  that  God  has  made  everything  for  His  holi- 
ness, because,  if  a  character  for  righteousness  is  the 
very  highest  good  of  the  Almighty,  His  righteous- 
ness is  to  be  put  boldly  forward.  When  we  say  that 
God's  chief  end  is  to  display  His  perfections,  w^e  sin 

*  Most  exegetes  turn  this  text  (Prov,  xvi.  4)  into  the  English, 
"  God  has  made  everything  for  itself,"  a  rendering  either  too  obvi- 
ous or  evidently  false.  Ewald  has  pointed  out  an  article  which  upsets 
all  the  heretofore  derived  meanings,  and  leaves  it  thus:  "Jehovah 
has  made  everything  for  His  decree,"  that  is  for  His  one  purpose 
(see  this  explained  in  Author's  Com.). 


Chap.  VI.]  The  Highest  Good.  47 

shamefully.  God's  chief  end  is  not  to  display  His 
perfections,  but  to  have  them.  If  righteousness  is 
His  highest  good,  then  that  is  His  chief  end.  This 
is  the  ^^ glory  "  or  iveight,  as  the  word  is  in  the 
Hebrew  language.  God  has  made  all  things,  as  a 
little  child  would  say,  that  He  might  do  right.  And 
there  is  no  more  ennobling  tenet  than  this  with 
which  all  theology  should  begin,  that  a  character  for 
righteousness  is  God's  highest  good. 

One  word  now  and  we  are  ready  for  the  next 
step.  What  is  man's  highest  good  ?  We  have 
already  said,  chaiacter.  But  whose  character?  As- 
similating him  with  the  case  of  God,  we  might 
easily  say,  his  own.  But  a  million  of  ages  in  the 
future,  man's  character,  though  higher  than  Gabriel's, 
will  be  infinitely  less  and  lower  than  the  character 
of  his  Maker.  In  all  time  the  character  of  the  Most 
High  will  be  our  highest  good.  And  in  scrupulous 
truthfulness,  other  people's  character,  they  being 
higher  and  more  numerous  than  we,  may  be  prayed 
for  more  and  loved  the  better,  out  of  the  very  excel- 
lence of  our  righteousness,  than  that  one  righteous 
habit  and  possession  that  may  belong  to  ourselves. 

But,  putting  Deity  apart,  and  putting  humanity 
apart  except  in  my  narrow  possession  of  it,  and 
shutting  me  down  into  myself,  we  may  say  boldly  as 
concerns  this  separate  interest,  that  my  personal 
righteousness  is  my  highest  good  ;  partly  because  it 
will  reveal  to  me  the  characters  of  others,  and  partly 
because  it  is  itself  the  treasure  of  my  happiest  and 
noblest  feeling. 


48  Righteousness,  .      [Book  I. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

REWARDS. 

If  this  personal  character  is  the  repository  of  our 
highest  and  noblest  feelings,  then  it  seems  simple 
that  righteousness,  in  the  third  sense  of  the  word,  is 
our  highest  reward. 

But  nothing  has  been  so  mistaken  about  as  recom- 
pense. Men  have  imagined  that  desert  of  one  kind 
or  the  other  is  a  consciousness.  I  am  surprised  at 
the  number  of  books  that  wrap  up  in  the  very 
nature  of  sinfulness  a  sense  of  its  ill-desert.  This 
ought  to  be  easily  unlearned.  There  would  be  a 
sense  of  sin  if  there  were  no  Hell  and  no  hereafter. 
In  fact  consciousnesses  are  not  prophets,  and  there 
is  nothing  innate  to  reveal  a  rectoral  God. 

But  postponing  that — if  there  seemed  a  conscious- 
ness of  reward,  it  would  be  a  blunder,  for  this  is  the 
most  difficult  of  all  our  knowledge.  Where  was 
the  reward  of  Satan  ?  When  he  sinned  he  was 
punished,  and  that  seems  the  most  easy  side  of  the 
question  of  recompense.  There  seems  to  be  mathe- 
matics for  guilt,  and  every  sin  receives  an  accurate 
infliction.  But  reward  is  neither  a  consciousness 
nor  a  fact.  Where  was  the  reward  of  Adam  ?  It  is 
not  true  that  every  right  feeling  deserves  a  recom- 
pense, for  Satan  had  every  right  feeling,  and,  for 
aught  we  know,  centuries  of  perfect  living,  and  yet 
one  sin,  as  in   the  instance  of  Eve,  destroyed  him, 


Chap.  VIII.]    ^  Sin.  49 

and  one  instant   could  undo  what    months  or  years 
had  not  been  able  to  perpetuate. 

Punishment  seems  to  be  a  thing  of  law,  and 
reward  a  thing  of  covenant,  and  yet  in  the  end  the 
whole  system  will  be  just.  And  all  we  need  in  this 
chapter  is  the  idea  that  the  highest  reward  is  the 
conferring  upon  a  man  a  righteous  character. 

CHAPTER   VIII. 


If  righteousness  be  but  a  single  quality,  and  the 
emotions  which  possess  it,  only  two,  it  miglit  be  im- 
agined that  sin  would  possess  a  like  duality;  but 
there  are  three  distinct  pairs  of  mental  states  that 
might  be  imagined  to  be  our  only  sins.  If  all  our 
righteousnesses  are  either  the  love  of  our  fellow  men 
or  the  love  of  the  attribute  of  holiness,  all  our  sins 
might  be  either  of  three  contradictorinesses  to 
these  : — either  first,  the  hatred  of  others  and  the 
hatred  of  holiness  ;  or  second,  the  love  of  self,  and 
the  love  of  wickedness  ;  or  third,  the  want  of  the 
love  of  others  and  the  want  of  the  love  of  the  attri- 
bute of  holiness.  It  is  these  last  alone  that  are  the 
only  possible  sins  in  Hell  or  in  the  universe.  The 
first  pair  are  mere  derivatives.  They  do  not  exist 
as  original  transgressions.  The  second  pair 'do  not 
exist  at  all.  The  third  pair  are  original  facts,  and 
make  up  the  sum  of  all  possible  transgression.  The 
first  pair  derive  their  character  from  the  last  pair.  I 
do  not  hate  others  without  a  motive.     They  must 


50  Righteottsness.  [Book  I. 

cross  me,  or  vex  me,  or  injure  me."^  Give  me  plenary 
benevolence  and  I  will  hate  nobody,  or,  as  hatred 
has  two  senses,  give  me  holiness  and  I  will  hate  the 
man  who  is  thoroughly  unholy,  and  I  will  hate  no 
one  in  the  sense  of  wishing  them  evil.  All  crimes 
under  the  head  of  the  first  pair  are  simple  derivatives. 
All  sin  is  a  negation.  The  trespasses  of  the  pit,  the 
most  violent  and  awful,  all  consist  in  a  want  of 
benevolence  and  a  want  of  love  for  the  principle  of 
holiness. 

Nor  can  the  second  pair  that  might  be  imagined 
to  be  original,  at  all  alter  our  decision.  With  these 
we  can  act  summarily  ;  for  they  are  no  sins  at  all. 
Self-love  is  constitutional  ;  in  fact  it  is  a  truism. 
How  can  I  help  self-love?  The  most  self-loving 
being  is  the  Almighty.  And  as  to  love  to  wicked- 
ness,f  who  can  dream  of  such  a  thing?  Men  hate 
wickedness.  Other  things  being  equal,  no  one  would 
be  wicked  ;  and  for  the  visible  reason  that  no  one 
could  hate  benevolence  any  more  than  a  beautiful 
picture.     It  must  thwart  us,  or  shame  us,  or  sting  us 

*  "  Men  loved  darkness  rather  than  light  ;  "  but  Christ  gives  an  im- 
mediate reason.  They  loved  so  deformed  a  thing,  not  for  that  it  was 
itself  lovely,  but  because  it  troubled  them.  They  hated  the  light, 
neither  came  to  the  light,  because  their  deeds  were  evil,  and  they 
trembled  at  the  light  "  lest  their  deeds  should  be  reproved  "  (Jo.  ill. 
19,  20). 

f  This  is  the  secret  of  hatred  to  God.  "The  carnal  mind  is 
enmity  against  God."  Why?  Not  because  it  would  be  possible  to 
bate  so  spotless  a  being,  but  because  he  crosses  us  ;  as  the  Apostle 
expresses  it,  "  because  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  in 
deed  can  be  "  (Rom,  viii.  7). 


Chap.  VIII.]  Sin.  5 1 

before  the  memory  of  it  can  awaken  anything  else 
than  admiration. 

What  breeds  the  violences  of  Hell  is,  to  let  our 
self-love,  which  is  in  itself  innocent,  strip  our  life  of 
any  moral  balance.  The  act  of  selfishness  becomes 
an  act  of  sin,  not  -because  it  is  wrong  to  love  our  own 
happiness,  but  that  it  is  bitterly  cruel  to  consult  it 
to  the  neglect  of  our  benevolence.  He  that  stabs 
his  neighbor  and  seizes  his  purse,  sins,  not  because 
he  wanted  the  purse  :  I  would,  and  so  would  any- 
body ;  but  because  he  wanted  it  away  from  his  neigh- 
bor. The  most  demon  act  distils  itself  down  to  a 
negation.  Take  away  from  me  my  moral  tastes 
(and  these  consist  in  benevolence  and  a  love  of  holi- 
ness), and  all  other  tastes  run  riot  without  restraint, 
and  these  are  that  ''flesh''  of  the  Apostle,  com- 
prehending some  beautiful  ''  lusts,"  which,  in  the 
noblest  form,  Paul  cries  out  against  as  a  "body  of 
death." 

Sin,  therefore,  is  a  sinful  act,  and  sinfulness  is  the 
character  that  habitually  commits  it,  and,  according 
to  our  account,  sin  has  to  look  for  its  sinfulness,  not 
to  its  own  nature  by  itself,  but  to  its  want  of  vir- 
tuousness.  Giving  soup  to  the  dying  is  not  a  sin  in 
itself  ;  but  has  always  been  a  sin  since  the  world  be- 
gan, both  to  the  Christian  and  those  who  are  tech- 
nically called  sinners,  not  because  it  is  not  partially 
benevolent,  but  because  it  is  not  benevolent  enough. 
I  poison  my  wife.  I  am  tired  of  her  wicked  tem- 
pers. It  is  no  sin  to  be  tired.  If  God  had  stricken 
her,  I  might  innocently  be   resigned.      But   Hell  is 


5:2  Righteousness.  [Book  I. 

full  of  such  enormities,  not  because  loving  my  own 
ease  is  wicked,  but  because  of  the  awful  deficiency 
of  the  higher  and  nobler  desires. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

THE    GREATEST  EVIL. 

We  showed  that  righteousness,  like  gravitation, 
was  vital,  and  that  the  absence  of  it  would  wreck 
the  universe  ;  and  yet  w^e  showed  that  the  love  of 
righteousness  was  not  a  sense  of  this,  but  a  native 
feeling:  and  that  righteousness  was  the  greatest 
good,  not  so  much  because  it  propped  the  universe, 
but  because  it  was  so  in  itself,  and  that  what  revealed 
that  fact  to  us  was  not  reasoning  upon  its  results, but  a 
god-like  taste,  that  splendid  conscience  which  is  itself 
the  highest  good  that  is  personal  in  the  creation. 

Now  the  like  thing  decides  itself  of  sin.  Sin  is 
the  grandest  evil :  and  that  not  because  it  turns  life 
into  a  Hell,  but  grandest  in  sin  itself :  of  course,  a 
habit  of  sin  is  worse  than  a  single  act.  That  splen- 
did conscience  which  enamors  us  of  right,  pronoun- 
ces a  kindred  sentence  in  respect  to  wickedness.  By 
every  well  regulated  taste,  sinfulness  is  the  largest 
evil  that  can  be  conceived  of  in  the  universe. 

CHAPTER  X. 

PUNISHMENT. 

If  sin  be  the  grandest  evil  in  the  universe,  sinful- 
ness is  the  severest  punishment.  This  really  opens 
up  our  whole  moral  constitution. 


Chap.  X.]  Punishment,  53 

Let  me  begin  at  the  beginning. 

Sin  is  the  grandest  evil  in  the  universe,  not  because 
of  its  mischief,  but  because  it  is  infamous  in  itself. 
The  conviction  of  this  is  a  consciousness.  The 
foetid  abomination  is  not  pronounced  such  by  logic, 
but  by  taste.  The  secret  of  Hell  and  the  secret  of 
Heaven  are  revealed  to  that  lordly  eye  which  we 
share  with  our  King,  which  Paul  calls  our  *'  spirit  " 
(Gal.  v.  17),  and  which  in  modern  times  goes  by  the 
name  of  conscience. 

But  this  moral  taste  has  nothing  to  tell  of  punish- 
ment. The  impression  has  been  different.  The 
common  understanding  has  been,  that  a  conviction 
of  ill  desert  is  just  as  original  as  our  conviction  of 
iniquity.  We  have  shown  that  this  is  not  the  fact 
in  the  instance  of  well  deserving.  For  why  did  not 
Satan  deserve  well  ?  An  inborn  declaration  that 
Adam  would  be  prospered  because  he  Avas  righteous, 
would  be  a  mistake,  for  he  was  spotlessly  righteous 
like  Satan.  There  is  no  mystery  to  be  compared  to 
this.  And  it  leaves  us  to  this  natural  decision,  that 
recompense  is  not  posited  by  conscience  as  turpi, 
tude  is;  that  reward  has  been  a  strange  thing  of 
which  we  know  very  little,  and  that  punishment  is 
strict  and  seems  to  have  no  exception,  but  that  it 
seems  to  have  been  marvellously  administered,  fear- 
fully delayed,  wonderfully  transmitted  to  a  Substi- 
tute, and  altogether  so  mixed  up  that  conscience 
would  be  absurd  to  think  of  as  a  native  original 
power  bred  to  pronounce  upon  it  in  all  these  changes 
of  administration. 


54  Righteousness,  [Book  I. 

All  that  we  can  agree  upon  is  this, — that  while 
reward  is  an  enigma,  punishment  is  a  constitutional 
instrument.  God  makes  use  of  it  because  it  is  wise 
in  the  nature  of  a  creation.  He  has  pledged  His 
truth  to  it,  and,  therefore,  must  punish.  He  has 
writ  his  law  for  it,  and  so  it  will  be  upheld.  It  is 
throughout  an  instrument,  sad  and  strange.  But  it 
is  not  the  out-birth  of  resentment  :  nor  is  the 
demand  for  it  written  upon  conscience  :  nor  is  the 
necessity  of  it  an  original  moral;  any  more  than  it 
is  an  original  morality  in  God  to  do  what  is  wise, 
and  hence  that  He  must  necessarily  choose  so  vital  a 
thing  with  which  to  uphold  the  universe. 

Now  punishments  vary.  Any  form  of  suffering 
may  be  administered  as  a  punishment.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  foresee  by  any  figure  of  the  Bible  what  the 
sufferings  will  be  in  the  eternal  world.  But  it  is 
vital  to  our  whole  understanding  of  sin  to  say  that 
one  form  of  punishment  never  varies.  All  punish- 
ment is  measured  ;  but  this  not  only  is  measured, 
and  continually  increases  by  unvarying  laws,  but 
never  varies  in  its  kind.  It  is  a  riddle.  Men  never 
realize  it.  It  is  the  commonest  thing  on  earth,  and 
yet  there  are  ministers  of  religion  who  would  almost 
challenge  it  if  brought  under  their  notice  as  of  the 
nature  of  punishment  at  all.  It  is  that  sinfulness  or 
loss  of  character,  which,  from  the  beginning  of  the 
creation,  has  been  the  most  uniform  punishment  of 
sin. 


Chap.  XI. J  Sinftilness.  55 


CHAPTER  XI. 


SINFULNESS. 


Why  am  I  a  sinner  ? 

It  is  easy  to  say  that  at  any  time  back  I  sinned 
and  continued  to  be  a  sinner.  But  why  ?  That  is 
the  question.  We  have  long  ago  found  out  that  sin 
is  incurable,  but  let  us  meet  the  difficulty.  In  the 
government  of  a  Holy  Father,  why  are  bad  men  not 
made  good  -^ 

If  conscience  were  an  intuition  of  ill-desert,  we 
might  answer  more  positively,  but  as  it  is  not,  we 
can  only  say  that  such  is  the  administration  of  the 
Almighty.  And  it  has  never  varied.  Every  sin 
since  time  began  (putting  the  gospel  apart),  has 
begotten  sin.  It  seems  necessary.  We  call  the 
condition  it  begets,  helplessness.  But  that  is  no 
other  than  a  name.  Undoubtedly  it  is  in  nature. 
But  it  is  a  law  of  the  Almighty.  The  Bible  is  full 
of  it.  It  is  thundered  in  Eden.  ''  In  the  day  thou 
eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  die."  And  far  down  in  the 
history  of  our  planet,  Paul  makes  it  plainer:  '*  The 
wages  of  sin  is  death."  And  he  tells  us  it  is  a  law 
of  government.  "  The  strength  of  sin  is  the  law." 
He  sets  us  to  imagining  the  case  had  it  been  differ- 
ent. **  I  had  been  alive  without  the  law  at  any 
time."  Fix  differently  the  law,  which  we  can  be 
sure  God  in  His  mercy  could  not  have  done,  and  I 
would  have  been  all  right ;  but  when  the  command- 
ment  came    in,  sin   got  a  sort    of  life.     It   grew  by 


56  Righteousness.  [Book  \. 

every  act  of  sinning.     Sin   acquired  all  the  life,  and 
Paul  the  death  that  comes  by  sinning. 

Sin,  therefore,  being  the  greatest  evil  in  the  uni- 
verse, has  this  other  horrible  sort  of  evil,  that  it 
grows  by  the  very  constitution  of  the  universe  like 
an  unhealthy  plant. 

CHAPTER  XII. 

HELL. 

If  sin  is  incurable  in  its  nature,  and  we  mean  by 
that  that,  in  the  constitution  of  things,  sin  has  need  to 
be  punished,  and  that,  in  like  constitution,  sin  itself 
is  a  punishment  of  sinning,  then,  throwing  the  gospel 
out  of  view,  this  seems  to  be  asserting  eternal  retri- 
bution. How  can  it  be  different  ?  Either  sin 
changes,  or  quits  one  day  its  punishment  for  sinning, 
or  sin  must  go  evenly  on,  or  that  which  seems 
the  most  inward  Constitution  of  our  lives  must  be 
altered,  or  else  the  Bible  must  be  literally  true 
when  it  speaks  of  ''  eternal  sinning  "  (Mr.  iii.  29,  see 
Revision).^ 

CHAPTER  XIII. 


Words  are  of  two  kinds,  either  for  consciousnesses, 
like  beauty,  or  like  sin,  or  like  yellow  color,  or  like 
righteousness  as  a  quality  of  emotions,  or  they  are 
the  art  of  the  rhetorician  wrapping  much  in  a  single 

*  On  inspection  we  see  that  the  Revised  Version,  though  it  avails 
of  a  correct  reading,  does  not  yet  reach  the  Greek.  It  should  be 
translated,    "  Is  subject  to  eternal  sinning." 


Chap.  XlliJ  G^iilt,  57 

vocable.  Guilt  is  of  this  lattei'  character.  We  are 
not  conscious  of  guilt.  We  are  conscious  morally 
of  only  two  things,  the  excellence  of  benevolence 
and  of  the  admiration  of  such  excellence  itself,  and 
the  turpitude  of  the  want  of  this,  or  of  what  we  have 
shown  to  be  our  only  wickedness.  To  speak  of  ill- 
desert  as  conscious,  is  to  trench  upon  the  other  form 
of  expression. 

Guilt  answers  to  ill-desert. 

Guilt  is  that  condition  of  a  man's  account  in 
which,  having  sinned,  or  some  one  else  having  sinned, 
the  punishment,  which  is  constitutionally  wise, 
and  for  that  reason  has  been  promised,  is  sure  to 
follow.  This  is  the  meaning  of  guiltiness.  It  is  a 
whole  story,  not  a  consciousness.  How  could  we  be 
conscious  of  Adamic  guilt  ?  How  could  Christ  be 
conscious  of  our  guilt  ?  And  how  can  we  be  con- 
scious of  any  meaning  of  our  guilt  in  Adam,  or  of 
Christ's  guilt  at  all,  unless  we  consider  it  as  a  de- 
scription ?  Turpitude  is  an  affair  of  conscience. 
Guilt  is  a  necessity  of  government.  And  we  would 
not  know  our  guilt,  until  life  discovered  it  in  the 
necessity  of  punishment,  or  God  revealed  it  in  His 
divine  administration. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

VINDICATORY  JUSTICE. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  vindicatory  justice.  If 
ill-desert  were  in  our  consciousness  of  sin,  ven- 
geance   might    be    primordial    with    the    Almighty. 


5^  Righteousness.  [Book  I. 

And  yet  it  would  be  very  strange.  Vengeance  is 
wrong  with  us.  What  makes  it  right  anywhere  ? 
And  here  is  the  opportunity  of  a  great,  reform. 
Starting  with  the  words  of  Christ,  we  eHminate  re- 
venge. He  Hfts  to  the  top  the  two  righteousnesses. 
They  are  the  same  in  God  and  man  (i  Jo.  ii.  8). 
He  quotes  them  from  Moses.  Their  philosophy  is 
fixed.  They  are  benevolence  and  the  love  of  holi- 
ness. And  when  He  has  brought  them  before  the 
eye  of  the  inquiring  Jew,  He  cuts  off  all  possibility  of 
others.  "'  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor,"  and  that 
covers  the  whole  field  of  benevolence,  and  "thou 
shalt  love  God,"  and  we  are  not  bound  to  love  Him 
except  as  He  is  holy  ;  and  then  Christ  shuts  the  book. 
There  is  no  ground  for  anything  else  to  be  primordial, 
for  He  says  in  the  most  sweeping  way,  *'  On  these  two 
commandments  hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets." 
Vindicatory  justice,  therefore,  is  not  of  the  same 
order  as  benevolence,  but,  as  a  secondary  thing,  re- 
cites a  whole  history  of  government.  First,  sin  is 
consciously  abominable.  That  flows  at  once  from  a 
love  of  holiness.  Second,  punishment  is  a  means  to 
abate  it.  Third,  God  must  necessarily  employ  it. 
All  this  is  recited  when  we  speak  of  vindicatory  jus- 
tice. This  attribute  of  vengeance  is  nothing  more 
than  the  derived  fact  that  God,  being  a  hater  of  in- 
iquity (that  hatred  being  primordial),  finds  need 
to  punish  it,  that  thought  not  being  primordial, 
nevertheless  based  in  the  nature  of  things,  and,  on 
that  account,  wise  and  necessary  for  the  government 
of  the  creature. 


Chap.  XV.]       Confusion  of  Words.  59 

God  and  man,  therefore,  are  absolutely  alike. 
Vengeance  is  wrong  in  man,  and,  for  the  same  reason, 
also  in  God.  Vengeance  is  right  in  man,  and,  on 
the  same  occasions,  right  in  our  Creator.  There  is 
no  difference.  When  vengeance  means  necessary- 
punishment,  it  is  right  in  anybody  ;  and  when  it 
means  resentment,  or  clogs  our  desire  for  the  wel- 
fare of  our  enemies,  it  is  wrong;  and  it  makes  not 
the  least  difference  whether  it  be  of  God  or  man. 

"Vengeance  is  God's"  (Rom.  xii.  19),  but  only 
in  like  cases  where  any  judge  would  insist  that  it 
should  stay  in  court,  and  where  individual  men  must 
not  seize  the  ermine  of  the  Almighty. 

CHAPTER  XV. 

CONFUSION     OF     WORDS. 

Revenge,  therefore,  being  an  incidental  con- 
sequence of  God's  hatred  to  sin,  or  an  instrumental 
method  of  driving  it  to  the  wall,  a  whole  dictionary 
full  of  disturbing  expressions  are  most  significantly 
explained.  Anger  is  not  the  paroxysm  of  a  brute, 
or  the  flush  of  a  man,  but  is  the  name  of  that  in 
God  which  is  as  quiet  as  His  love.  In  reality  it 
coexists  with  love,  or,  in  other  words,  is  that  con- 
dition of  God  in  which  His  hatred,  which  is  intense 
for  sin,  is  obliged  to  punish,  for  lack  of  any  expia- 
tion. God  is  "  furious  "  when  He  would  be  crlad  to 
pardon,  but  cannot  with  wise  administration.  Those 
words,  therefore,  are  infinitely  accommodated,  and 
borrowed  from  what  is  passionate  in  men.     Wrath, 


6o  Righteoitsness.  [Book  I. 

anger,  jealousy,  reconciliation,  propitiation,  electing 
love  and  the  whole  genus  of  humanly  expressed 
appellations  are,  like  weariness,  or  still  more 
emphatically,  like  repenting,  a  thing  asserted  of  God, 
when  He  never  changes,  and  could  find  no  place 
of  repentance  in  a  scheme  that  pleases  Him  per- 
fectly from  the  very  beginning.  God  is  reconciled 
when  unchanged  in  His  benevolence.  He  is  pro- 
pitiated, when  it  is  Himself  that  has  invented  the 
ransom.  And,  therefore,  electing  love  is  not  ben- 
evolence for  His  saints,  for  He  has  benevolence  for 
all,  but,  like  repentance,  a  piece  of  rhetoric,  combin- 
ing the  idea  that  He  would  gladly  save,  and  that 
other  gospel  fact,  that  He  has  found  a  possibility  of 
doing  so  in  certain  instances. 

The  confusion  of  thought,  therefore,  that  resorts 
to  two  persons  of  a  Trinity,  crudely  imagining,  as 
many  do,  the  anger  of  one  Person,  and  the  placating, 
or,  as  the  more  ignorant  would  fancy,  the  soothing 
influence  of  Another,  all  derives  from  these  anthro- 
pomorphist  notions.  The  insulted  and  resisted 
Father  is  the  very  fountain  of  grace.  The  Redemp- 
tion is  His  own  scheme.  The  Propitiation  is  out  of 
His  own  benevolence.  And  He  has  no  electing  love 
except  that  which  simply  expresses  His  success  with 
some,  and  that,  v/ith  reasons  in  every  case.  His  bene- 
volence for  all  triumphs  sometimes,  as  it  would  do 
always  if  it  were  eternally  wise. 

We  do  not  mean  that  propitiation  is  less  neces- 
sary, or  that  there  is  less  distinct  satisfaction  to 
justice,  but  that  it  is  justice  that  is  appeased,  not 


Chap.  XVI.]  Pardon.  6 1 

anger,  for  that  wrath  is  appeased,  not  in  the  sense 
of  a  brute  or  of  a  man,  but  in  the  sense  of  a  com- 
passionate Father,  who  never  ceases  to  pity,  but 
must  indulge  His  pity  within  certain  laws  ;  who 
abominates  sin'  and  must  necessarily  punish,  but 
who,  under  the  pressure  of  His  love,  has  a  positive 
plan  by  which  He  may  be  just,  and  yet  the  justifier 
of  him  that  believeth  in  Jesus. 

This  positive  propitiation  does  not  make  Him 
more  benevolent,  and  does  not  appease  any  passion- 
ate anger,  but  simply  satisfies  wisdom,  and  sanctions 
an  act  which  God  would  perform,  with  like  opening, 
even  for  the  Adversary. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 


There  are  few  words  in  any  language  that  are  so 
cut  away  from  in  their  original  meaning,  and  so 
added  to  for  peculiar  use,  as  pardon  is  when  it 
comes  into  the  region  of  religion.  A  neighbor's 
pardon  is  different  from  the  pardon  of  a  court,  and 
a  court's  pardon  is  different  from  a  pardon  on  high. 
A  neighbor's  pardon  carries  the  idea  of  anger,  and 
he  changes  his  feeling  generally  when  he  holds  out 
his  hand.  It  is  this  mixture  of  the  human  that 
spoils  our  notions  of  the  gospel.  But  when  we  band 
neighbors  in  a  government,  or  speak  of  forgiveness 
by  a  king,  the  idea  changes  a  little.  There  is  no 
anger  of  a  king.  And  forgiveness  by  an  earthly 
court  is  the  best  adumbration  of  the  higher  pardon. 


62  Righteo2tsness,  [Book  I. 

And  yet  it  is  not  perfect.  The  act  on  the  part  of 
Heaven  is  strangely  artificial.  In  the  first  place,  it  is 
not  entire.  I  go  out  of  an  earthly  court,  and  my 
friends  are  shouting  my  deliverance.  I  am  as  free 
as  air.  But  God  forgives  me,  and  I  must  immedi- 
ately begin  with  my  reserves.  Wherein  am  I  for- 
given ?  Not  in  immunity  from  suffering,  and  not  in 
immunity  from  sin.  The  robber  is  turned  right  out 
of  jail  :  but  Paul,  a  superb  believer,  drags  his  fetters 
yet.  Where,  precisely,  does  the  act  come  in  ?  It 
may  be  said  it  will  become  complete,  and  that  a  large 
number  of  the  Reformed  believe.  But  the  Scrip- 
tures throw  it  into  doubt.  Pardon  is  neither  whole 
nor  certain.  But  then,  in  the  third  place,  it  has  a 
character,  setting  it  quite  aloft,  and  entirely  separ- 
ating it  from  pardons  among  men. 

Pardon  by  the  Almighty  includes  cleansing.  We 
have  already  seen  that  sin  is  our  greatest  evil,  and 
discovered  text  after  text  showing  that  it  is  our 
chiefest  punishment.  Pardon  without  any  relief 
would  be  nought.  Forgiveness,  which  does  nothing 
of  the  kind  in  human  verdicts,  must  cover  the  whole 
penalty.  And  as  in  God's  kingdom  it  is  double, 
partly  sin  and  partly  suffering,  forgiveness  must 
banish  both,  and  as  notoriously  it  does  not  do  it, 
then,  to  sum  up  the  whole  case,  forgiveness  in  this 
fallen  earth  means  just  what  we  see,^ — -that  partial 
deliverance  from  punishment  which  .puts  a  gradual 
end  to  sin  and  suffering. 

A  man  is  pardoned  and  suffers  yet.  A  man  is 
pardoned   and  sins  yet.     A    man   is  pardoned   and 


Chap.  XVIIL]  Obligation.  63 

may  cease  to  be  pardoned,  so  that  sins  once  for- 
given may  be  punished.  All  we  can  say  of  pardon 
is  that  it  is  that  artificial  thing  that  means  all  this, 
and,  as  Augustine  declares,  can  be  crowned  with 
perfectness  only  by  persevering  to  the  end. 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

JUSTIFICATION. 

That  trait  of  pardon  which  rids  us  of  our  sins, 
is  called  justification.  We  will  have  to  prove  this 
in  an  after  chapter. 

CHAPTER   XVIII. 

OBLIGATION. 

That  law  of  sin  which  is  called  ill-desert,  is  not  a 
consciousness,  but  is  a  thing  discovered  and  expe- 
rienced. Obligation  is  still  more  complex.  There 
is  an  oughtnessm  beauty  when  we  look  at  a  gorgeous 
sunset,  and  say,  That  ought  to  be  appreciated.  But 
in  the  region  of  morals,  the  word  is  much  more  sig- 
nificant. There  is  a  nobleness  in  right  which  corres- 
ponds to  the  idea  of  ought.  But  ouglitness  has 
become  complicated.  Our  fears  enforce  it,  and  all 
our  gratitude  to  our  Creator.  Our  comfort  sanc- 
tions it,  and  our  public  spirit.  It  is  a  w^ord  as 
universal  as  motive,  and  we  only  mention  it  to 
keep  clear  of  multiplying  consciousnesses.  There 
are  but  two  intuitions  of  conscience,  one  the 
nobility  of  right,  and  the  other  the  desirableness  in 
itself  to  us   of  the  welfare  of  others.     Obligation  is 


64  Righteousness.  [Book  I. 

not  a  separate  consciousness,  but  the  blending  of  all 
enforcements  of  these  two  necessary  things. 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

OCCASION    FOR    THEOLOGY. 

There  could  be  no  Theology  without  God,  and 
there  could  be  no  theologizing  without  creatures. 

There  could  be  some  things  true  without  either. 

We  have  wished  to  disengage  those  true  things. 

Two  and  two  would  be  four  if  nothing  had  ever 
been. 

So,  in  conceptUy  sin  would  be  sin,  and  honor  would 
be  good  and  great,  without  the  universe.  We 
wished  to  state  that  before  anything  concrete.  Sin 
has  been  so  mixed  with  God,  and  morals  so  buried 
in  the  Almighty,  that  they  have  lost  their  nature. 
And  the  atheist's  clamor,  that  virtue  is  good  in  it- 
self, and  should  reign  even  if  there  be  no  hereafter, 
has  been  so  fought  against  as  to  make  atheists,  and 
to  put  atheists  in  the  right  on  a  greater  question 
than  the  existence  of  the  Almighty. 

Undoubtedly,  virtue  is  more  important  than  God. 
It  would  be  important  to  man,  if  he  had  no  Creator. 
It  would  be  important  to  have  no  Creator  if  there 
were  no  virtue.  And  in  God  and  in  man  and  in  all 
their  mutual  acts  virtue  is  the  sole  relief  for  the 
desire  that  we  might  have  annihilation. 

Virtue  first  then  !  and  let  that  be  thoroughly  con- 
ceived before  that  of  which  it  is  all  the  value,  viz., 
either  man  or  God. 


BOOK   II. 

MAN. 
CHAPTER  I. 

CONSCIENCE, 

So  huge  an  affair  as  the  universe  is  dealt  with  very 
summarily  when  we  declare  that  there  is  no  good  in  it 
except  in  emotion.  You  may  include  God  in  the 
idea.  Pause  and  consider.  What  good  could  there 
be  except  pleasure,  or  some  nobility  of  pleasure  ? 
Pile  up  material  masses:  are  they  not  all  Cheops, 
built  for  some  little  chamber?  And  ascend  to  the 
dignity  of  life.  What,  is  life  in  a  bean  plant?  Sup- 
pose the  worlds  were  ivied  with  vegetation,  what 
would  that  amount  to  ?  And  this  is  not  conjecture^ 
but  the  finest  of  reasoning.  God  might  be  willing 
to  create  a  universe  for  such  tremors  of  sense  as  are 
in  a  sponge  or  a  snail,  but  that  He  piles  worlds  with- 
out pleasure,  and  without  the  capacity  of  emotion 
either  in  Himself  or  them,  is  not  only  improbable,  but 
impossible.  He  has  endowed  us  with  too  much  sense 
to  imagine  that  mere  matter,  or  even  mere  life,  or,  still 
more  than  that,  mere  thought,  if  it  be  machine  thought 
with  no  pleasurable  emotion,  is  all  that  eternity  will 


66  Man.  [Book  II. 

achieve.  We  arrive  at  this  much,  therefore — that 
the  only  good  of  the  universe  is  emotion. 

But  we  have  seen  that  there  are  two  emotions 
that  have  the  grandest  eminence.  They  are  alone. 
There  is  nothing  like  them.  The  pleasure  they  give 
is  higher.  And  it  is  grand,  not  simply  in  its  happi- 
ness, but  in  the  glorious  nature  of  its  happiness. 
It  is  noble  in  itself,  just  as  some  tastes  of  beauty  are 
lovely  and  exquisite  themselves.  And  the  quality 
of  this  pleasure  is  such  that  the  habit  of  having  it  is 
the  highest  good  for  either  man  or  Deity. 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  why  we  begin  with  con- 
science. If  the  world  without  emotion  were  no 
good,  and  all  sorts  of  emotion  were  worthless  in 
comparison  with  two,  it  will  be  seen  how  the  mind, 
as  it  can  have  these  two,  is  the  chamber  in  Cheops, 
the  only  thing  much  worth  considering  when  we 
treat  of  man. 

CHAPTER    11. 

ALL    ELSE    IN  MAN. 

Conscience,  if  it  is  the  mother  of  but  two  emo- 
tions, seems  to  take  little  room  in  our  humanity. 
It  must  be  the  quality  rather  than  the  quantity  that 
must  attract  our  admiration.  There  being  no  con- 
science in  brutes,  the  capacity  of  other  emotions  is 
their  highest  good.  The  capacity  of  other  emotions 
in  man  is  infinitely  greater  than  in  the  instance  of  the 
brutes,  and  that  in  two  particulars.  There  are  more 
of  such   emotions,  and   their  nature   is  higher.     A 


Chap.  II.]  All  Else  in  Man.  67 

dog  may  enjoy  the  chase  more  than  his  master, 
but,  on  his  return  home,  he  cannot  revel  in  a  sun- 
set. There  are  exquisite  pleasures  of  the  intellect 
outside  of  conscience.  But  the  pleasures  of  con- 
science are  of  that  strange  nature  that  the  measure 
of  them  is  the  secret  of  Hell  and  the  secret  of 
Heaven.  A  linnet  may  possess  its  pleasures  without 
fault  and  Avithout  danger  ;  but  a  man  must  throw  all 
of  himself,  outside  of  conscience,  into  a  fearful  foe- 
manship.  What  is  innocent  in  a  bird,  becomes  not 
onty  sinful  in  a  man,  but  the  whole  of  sin  that  I  am 
capable  of  committing.  I  have  a  conscience,  and, 
therefore,  some  love  of  right ;  but  if  I  have  not  a 
perfect  conscience,  then,  by  the  constitution  of  my 
nature,  every  other  emotion  becomes  what  we  call 
sin.  If  I  could  die,  I  would  quit  sinning.  If  I 
could  sleep,  the  arrest  of  conscious  life  would  pi'*- 
a  stop  to  all  transgression.  But  if  I  think,  then 
I  feel ;  and  if  I  feel,  then  I  sin  ;  and  it  makes  no 
difference  what  the  feeling  is,  if  it  be  the  enjoyment 
of  the  most  exquisite  taste,  it  is  not  only  sin,  but,  in 
a  wide  range,  of  a  class  that  are  my  only  possible 
sins.  Conscience  has  the  narrowest  kind  of  a  king- 
dom, viz.,  but  two  emotions,  but  of  so  imperial  a  hold, 
that  all  else  in  man  is  swept  into  sin  if  these  two 
fail.  Sin  is  any  emotion  of  heart  unattended  by 
these  two  ;  and,  therefore,  suppose  a  soul  not  perfect 
in  love  to  others  and  in  love  to  holiness,  and  every 
emotion  in  that  soul,  being  deficient,  is  sinful,  and  it 
has  all  the  consequences  of  being  sinful,  viz.,  the 
necessity  of   being  punished,  and  that  its  severest 


68  Man,  [Book  II. 

punishment  shall  be,  the  increase  of  its  heartless- 
ness  when  it  comes  to  be  experienced  again  in 
another  instance. 

Paul  has  words  to  meet  this.  He  calls  conscience 
'*  spirit."  He  calls  all  else  of  our  conscious  nature 
*'  flesh."  We  ought  to  keep  this  in  constant  remem- 
brance. "  Flesh,"  with  Paul,  is  not  lust,  like  greed 
or  gluttony.  The  most  refined  likings,  as  for  art  or 
courtesy,  are  *'  flesh  "  in  the  language  of  this  writer. 
When  he  says,  ''Beware  of  fleshly  lusts,"  we  are  to 
beware  of  paying  our  store-bills  out  of  a  liking  for 
repute  among  our  people.  What  is  innocent  in  the 
brute  becomes  the  whole  of  sin  to  the  fallen,  if  con- 
science be  not  strong  enough  to  hold  her  sway  with- 
in our  nature,  and  to  make  all  sensitive  traits  meekly 
surrender  to  her  simple  government.  Paul  tells  how 
this  is  to  be  changed.  "There  Is  a  soul-body,"  he 
says,  and  he  means  by  this  a  body  under  influences 
like  the  brute's.  The  brute  has  a  soul  (Gen.  i.  20, 
Num.  xxxi.  28),  and,  as  the  brute  has  a  soul  without 
a  conscience,  all  goes  right.  In  the  instance  of  the 
brute  a  "  soul  body  "  is  body  enough  for  an  inno- 
cent existence.  But  a  man  has  a  "  spirit-body ;  " 
and  Paul  declares  that  it  is  to  be  a  "spirit-body" 
par  excellence  in  the  saints'  resurrection.  "  It  is 
sown  a  '  soul-body  ; '  "  that  is,  a  body  inspired  by 
the  soul  to  the  neglect  of  the  '''' pneiimay  That  is, 
when  the  Christian  goes  to  the  grave  he  carries  there 
a  body  in  which  the  conscience  has  waked  up  again, 
and  is  doing  better,  but  in  which  the  ^' pneuma  "  or 
conscience  has  only  in  part  revived,  and,  therefore, 


Chap.  Ill.j     An  Impaired  Conscience.  69 

in  which  every  other  part  is  still  sinful.  But,  in 
the  resurrection,  conscience  will  come  up  like  a 
giant.  It  will  take  entire  possession  of  the  body. 
Conscience  will  be  complete ;  and,  therefore,  all 
other  faculties  will  be  as  innocent  as  the  birds',  now 
no  longer  because  they  have  the  birds*  fleshliness, 
but  because  they  are  at  the  other  extreme.  Con- 
science has  taken  her  place  as  reigning  fully  over 
all  our  nature  (i  Cor.  xv.  44). 

CHAPTER  III. 

AN    IMPAIRED    CONSCIENCE. 

Taste  is  the  whole  sense  by  which  we  discern 
beauty.  Let  it  become  dimmicd,  and  we  have  the 
bad  eye  or  the  bad  ear  that  we  hear  of  in  tint  or 
tone.  Conscience  is  our  whole  of  morals ;  that  is, 
a  perfect  conscience  is  the  whole  condition  of  holi- 
ness. Let  conscience  be  dimmed  (and,  strange  to 
say,  it  is  never  blinded  like  an  eye  totally  dark),  and 
that  is  the  condition  of  sinfulness.  If  a  man  looks 
out  upon  others  with  a  dimmed  conscience,  he  is  a 
hopeless  sinner,  and  as  we  shall  see,  we  are  born  into 
the  world  in  this  dimmed  condition. 

Now,  if,  looking  out  upon  life  with  this  imperial 
eye,  we  do  not  see  clearly,  all  other  objects  that  we 
see,  attended  by  their  emotions,  are  occasions  of 
sin.  The  brute  can  feed  and  sleep  and  roar  after 
his  prey  in  perfect  innocence.  Why?  Because  he 
has  no  conscience.  The  saint,  millions  of  ages  hence, 
may  drink  the  nectar  of  the  good,  and  why?     Be- 


70  Man.  [Book  II. 

cause  he  has  a  perfect  conscience.  But  in  this  home 
between,  the  case  is  different.  A  nerve  in  a  man's 
tooth  may  work  him  agonies.  That  slender  thing, 
which  is  hardly  less  shut  in — we  call  it  conscience — 
if  it  be  ever  so  little  dimmed,  damns  a  man.  There 
are  such  singular  facts  about  it !  Afterwards  every 
other  consciousness  is  a  transgression.  Then  follow 
the  most  horrible  results,  i.  Every  sin  is  to  be  pun- 
ished. 2.  Every  punished  sin,  beside  its  sufferings, 
engenders  higher  iniquity.  3.  This  engendering  of 
iniquity  simply  consists  in  a  further  dimming  of  con- 
science. 4.  A  dimming  of  conscience  is  the  foun- 
tain curse  of  the  creation.  It  is  itself  the  substance 
of  our  sinfulness.  It  will  go  on  through  the  ages  of 
the  wicked.  And  the  room  for  it  to  be  increased  is 
"the  bottomless  pit  "  of  the  lost  transgressor. 

CHAPTER    IV. 

CONSCIENCE   NOT   BY    NATURE  CURABLE. 

If  conscience  be  our  moral  sense,  and  the  dimness 
of  it  our  sinfulness,  and  other  emotions,  when  our 
conscience  is  dim,  our  only  sinnings  ;  if  each  sinning 
is  punished,  and  each  punishment  of  sin  is  not  only 
suffering,  but  an  increased  dimming  of  our  con- 
science, we  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  conscience, 
once  dimmed,  cannot  be  restored  to  sight.  This  is 
the  condition  of  the  angels.  Once  blinded,  they  are 
lost;  and  the  blindness  must  deepen  through  the 
endless  ages  of  their  being.  *'  From  darkness  to 
light"  is  a  path  which  can  only  be  travelled  through 
a  divine  Redeemer. 


Chap.  V.]     Singular 2 ties  of  Condition,  71 

CHAPTER    V. 

SINGULARITIES  OF   MAN'S    CONDITION, 

We  have  met,  in  the  pages  passed,  one  Stygian 
mystery.  It  is,  how  a  good  man  can  become  a  bad 
man.  Gabriel  will  never  unravel  it.  We  have  made 
"The  Bible,"  therefore,  the  subject  of  the  next 
chapter,  not  because  of  this  mystery,  for  it  cannot 
clear  it.  "The  wages  of  sin  is  death,"  and  the  sim- 
plest reasoning  might  naturally  be,  "  The  wages  of 
right  doing  is  life."  But  in  two  instances  of  right 
doing — yea,  more  boldly  than  that,  in  every  instance 
of  sin,  it  began  with  righteousness.  Eternity  hardly 
will  solve  so  deep  a  mystery.  But  while  the  origin 
of  sin  must  remain  dark,  we  need  the  Bible  in  en- 
countering three  other  mysteries  which  belong 
specially  to  man. 

The  first  is  that  man  is  born  a  sinner.  It  was  not 
sin  that  begat  sinfulness  in  the  instance  of  any  one 
of  us.  In  the  second  place,  sin,  though  it  measures 
sinfulness,  and  increases  it  by  unvarying  laws,  yet 
has  respite  from  suffering,  or,  as  we  commonly  ex-' 
press  it,  is  not  punished  in  the  present  world.  In 
the  third  place,  there  seem  exceptions  to  sinfulness. 
Sin  does  not  always  produce  it.  In  other  words, 
there  seem  to  be  some  sinners  in  whom  sin  is  dying 
out,  and  in  whom  it  does  not  produce  its  increase  of 
sinfulness.  We  shall  never  conceive  how  Satau 
could  be  the  noblest  of  the  good,  and  suddenly  fall, 
or  how  Adam  could  be    tenderly  devout,  and  ever 


72  •  Man.  [Book  II. 

perish  ;  but  these  other  things  the  Scriptures  dis- 
tinctly explain,  and  I  do  not  mean  that  even  these 
are  intelligently  fathomed,  but  we  are  told  of  their 
occasions, — on  whose  account  men  are  born  in  sin,  on 
what  pretension  they  are  not  immediately  punished, 
and  for  what  reasons  of  grace  some  men  sin  less  and 
are  not  punished  by  sinfulness.  A  discussion  of 
these  will  be  seen  to  cover  all  the  ground  of  our 
Christianity. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  BIBLE. 

There  is  an  unnoticed  sentence, — ''  Thou  hast 
made  thy  charges  positive  commands  in  order  to 
their  thorough  keeping"  (Ps.  119.  4).  The  idea  is 
a  fine  one  in  connection  with  the  Bible.  If  it  is  not 
inspired  in  every  part,  it  is  a  mere  whim  of  the 
reader  where  or  in  what  degree  it  shall  be  looked 
upon  as  inspired  at  all.  It  is  like  the  original  Sun- 
day, a  custom  from  the  very  beginning.  Make  it 
voluntary,  and  you  dethrone  it.  Make  it  partial, 
and  you  bring  it  to  an  end.  How  can  there  be  any 
Sabbath  if  men  may  cut  and  carve,  and  use  whole 
masses  of  it  for  their  worldly  pleasure?  The  only 
philosophy  of  the  day  is  that  which  m.akes  it  per- 
fect, and  which  allows  no  deviation  from  it  in  any 
case,  except,  as  under  any  other  statute  of  the  ten,  a 
deviation  taught  by  the  absolute  necessity  of  the 
creature. 

To  make  the  Bible  of  the    highest    value    to    the 


Chap.  VI.]  The  Bible.  jt, 

lost,  it  must  be  perfect.  This  is  the  theory  of  it. 
This  is  what  it  claims  (Jo.  x.  35,  2  Tim.  iii.  16). 
The  triumphs  wrought  by  its  light  have  been 
wrought  by  a  Bible  which  had  this  advantage  given 
it  of  whole  authority.  Men  have  been  very  unfor- 
tunate in  their  way  of  defending  the  Bible  ;  but  it 
is  those  who  have  defended  it,  that  have  built  the 
ships,  and  run  the  roads,  and  ruled  and  taught  and 
owned  this  planet,  and  struck  the  highest  paths, 
whether  of  learning  or  dominion. 

I  say,  unfortunate,  for  men  have  separated  their 
proofs  and  given  room  for  the  strategy  divide  et  ini- 
pera,  A  large  brotherhood  believe  the  Bible,  be- 
cause the  Church  tells  them  to.  They  give  scant 
weight  to  any  other  authority.  A  large  brother- 
hood suspend  the  Bible,  much  like  Mohammed's 
coffin,  as  though  a  ''Thus  saith  the  Lord  "  made  it 
stay  in  the  air  by  something  like  a  support  in  itself. 
The  mass  plead  the  supernatural,  and  prop  the  book 
by  prophecy  and  a  testimony  to  miracle.  A  class, 
increasing  in  our  day,  point  exclusively  to  con- 
science, and  these  are  the  class  that  decry  revelation. 
They  take  as  much  of  the  Bible  as  they  think  good. 
If  Abraham  was  to  kill  Isaac,  they  cut  that  out.  If 
Joshua  was  to  slay  the  Hittites,  they  blot  that.  If 
Moses  commanded  slavery,  or  our  Saviour  created 
wine,  it  will  be  seen  how  to  such  people  the  Bible  is 
their  will,  and  not  the  will  of  the  Almighty.  What 
is  the  use  of  such  a  book?  Here,  building  itself 
upon  conscience,  is  created  in  our  day  the  worst  form 
of  unconscientious  infidelity. 


74  Man.  [Book  II. 

What  is  the  remedy? 

Beyond  all  manner  of  doubt,  to  bring  all  these 
evidences  together. 

Professor  Henry  believed  in  God,  because  He  was 
the  theory  that  contained  all  the  facts.  And  this, 
now,  is  the  reasoning  that  befits  the  Bible.  Who- 
ever asks.  What  proof  of  plenary  inspiration  ?  The 
answer  ought  to  be,  Every  possible  proof  of  which 
the  mind  is  capable.  Then  all  the  brotherhoods 
can  bring  their  contributions.  The  Roman  Catholic 
can  bring  the  Church,  for,  undoubtedly,  the  substan- 
tial Church  of  every  age  has  spoken  for  the  Bible. 
This  is  indeed  our  practical  beginning,  for  our  first 
trust  to  revelation  was  derived  from  our  mother, 
and  she  to  us  was  but  a  fragment  of  the  Church. 
All  ages  have  produced  saints.  AH  saints  have  be- 
lieved the  faith.  All  the  faith  is  included  in  the 
Bible  ;  and  therefore  the  testimony  of  the  best  of 
men  is  no  mean  proof  of  the  truth  of  revelation. 

Next  comes  Mohammed's  coffin,  and  that  extreme 
class  of  Protestants  who  forget  themselves  so  far  as 
to  be  quoting  nakedly,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord." 
But  if  we  watch  them  closely,  they  forget  them- 
selves sometimes  the  other  way.  Out  of  the  bosom 
of  these  groups  have  come  the  noblest  elenchtic 
writings  that  the  Vs'orld  has  seen.  Testimony,  in  all 
its  lights,  and  miracle,  in  all  its  methods,  have  built 
up  "  external  evidences,"  as  they  are  called,  to  the 
very  extreme,  and  contributed  their  God-appointed 
part  of  the  required  demonstration. 

But  now,  last  and    noblest -of    all,  this    dangerous 


Chap.  VI.]  The  Bible.  75 

infidelity!  It  is  indeed  "  a  jewel  of  gold  in  a  swine's 
snout."  After  the  dream  of  childhood,  and  after  the 
scaffolding  of  the  Church,  and  after  the  gymnastics 
of  external  argumentation,  the  soul,  settling  down 
upon  her  rest,  leans  most  upon  her  conscience. 
There  is  no  God — I  mean  for  us — and  no  Heaven, 
and  no  possible  Hell,  without  the  light  of  conscience. 
There  can  be  no  law,  and,  of  course,  no  sin,  and 
even  for  Lucifer,  the  fallen  Prince,  no  torment,  with- 
out a  conscience.  Satan  must  have  some  moral 
light,  or  he  can  not  be  continued  in  penal  darkness 
(Rom.  iv.  15). 

Then,  signally,  the  moral  proofs  must  be  topmost 
after  all.  The  Ingersolls,  who  use  them  to  overturn 
the  Bible,  are  simply  inistake7i  in  their  morals.  If 
God  stoned  Achan's  children,  and  killed  the  Hittites, 
and  put  their  women  to  the  sword,  and  stole  their 
dwelling  places  for  the  habitation  of  his  people,  the 
God  that  sweeps  with  pestilence,  and  kills  with 
earthquake,  must  have  a  right  to  do  it,  or  the  Bible 
is  not  worth  the  tablet  on  which  it  was  inscribed. 
The  knife  of  Abraham  must  be,  to  his  Creator,  like 
the  virus  of  the  plague ;  and  the  direct  message  out 
of  Heaven  must  turn  the  saint  and  the  father  into  a 
like  role  with  the  elements  of  death,  or  Jehovah  is  a 
myth,  and  this  singular  book  merely  the  prince  of 
cunningly  devised  impostures. 

And  so  of  science.  It  is  no  less  wise  to  give  up 
Moses  on  the  ground  of  slavery,  or  to  give  up  Christ 
for  his  fermented  drink,  than  to  take  that  ground 
which  some  foolish  exegetes  think  discreet,  that  the 


76  Man,  [Book  ii. 

Bible  is  not  a  book  of  science.  It  would  be  as  smart 
to  say  that  the  Bible  is  not  a  book  of  morals.  The 
Bible  is  the  book  of  morals.  What  the  Most  High 
does  in  Scripture,  it  is  safe  for  man  to  do,  tantis pro- 
tantis.  And  so  of  science.  It  is  cowardly  to  give 
it  up.  The  Bible  is  the  book  of  science.  The  cavils 
against  it  are'  like  garlic  in  the  field,  spindling  and 
weaker  as  we  begin  to  extirpate  it.  The  flood-cavils 
of  Paine,  and  the  sun-cavils  of  Rome  against  ill-fated 
truth,  were  marvellously  more  robust  than  modern 
difficulties.  Cavil  seems  going  to  seed.  To  take 
a  book  that  tells  of  the  creation,  that  reveals,  more 
than  any  laboratory,  the  origin  of  species,  that  ex- 
plains among  palaeontological  facts  the  recency  of 
man  ;  and  that  when  palaeontological  facts  are  the 
crudest  infants,  shaking  their  callow  heads  at  hoary 
revelation  ;  and,  as  a  tribute  of  friends,  to  try  to 
retire  the  Bible  out  of  the  contest,  as  really  knowing 
no  better,  because  not  scientific,  is  like  a  general 
surrendering  when  he  has  pierced  a  centre.  There 
are  such  things  in  war;  but  God  knows  He  will 
never  allow  them  for  the  defeat  of  His  people. 
Toiling  painfully  up,  till  the  battle  with  science  is 
really  the  noblest  part  of  external  confirmation ;  till 
broken  darts  are  emphatically  the  breastwork  of  the 
Scripture;  till  the  fuss  about  the  Mentone  skull 
shows  how  science  longs  for  even  crumbs  of  replica- 
tion, and  then  to  say  that  the  Bible,  thus  victorious, 
is  not  scientific ;  or,  worse  than  that,  to  go  off  into 
senile  theories  of  the  evolution  of  the  body  of  man, 
but    the   late  planting  of  the   soul,  is    certainly  to 


Chap.  VI. \  The  Bible.  yj 

furnish  what  some  day  will  be  gathered  as  "■  The 
Curiosities  of  Exegetes,"  and  deserves  at  once,  from 
masculine  minds,  the  most  sturdy  denunciation. 

Let  Scripture  stand  through  its  truth.  It  is  both 
moral  and  scientific.  It  is  more  moral  than  men, 
and  more  scientific  than  the  newest  theories  of 
nature.  If  it  cannot  sustain  that,  it  is  false.  If  it 
was  not  right  for  Christ  to  drink  that  which  would 
intoxicate,  and  not  possible  that  God  within  a  few 
millenniums  created  man,  all  Christendom  is  a  dolt, 
and  all  Scripture  is  a  stupid  imposition. 

But,  differently  still; — To  go  maundering  over 
chapters  ;  to  pretend  to  great  scrutiny  of  styles  ;  to 
move  great  masses  of  the  book  over  to  what  is  taste- 
fully called  a  post-exilian  age  ;  to  say,  "The  Lord 
spake  by  Moses  "  means  by  some  one  else,  and  that 
centuries  after  Moses  was  dead  ;  and  then  to  dignify 
ail  this  with  the  title  of  "  The  Higher  Criticism,"  is 
one  of  those  ephemeral  trifles  which  modern  rest- 
lessness has  cast  up  ;  like  a  flag  that  will  return  to 
its  place  when  the  mud  ceases  to  thaw ;  a  conceit  at 
which  angels  laugh  ;  a  plot  with  which  devils  have 
had  to  do  ;  and  yet  a  scholarship  so  shallow,  that 
even  if  profound  scholars  have  had  their  part,  it  can 
easily  be  brought  to  bay  with  this  question, — What, 
after  all,  is  your  reason  ?  What  one  solid  reason  has 
ever  been  given  ?  That  is  the  mannerism  of  these 
assaults,  a  wonderful  assuming  and  delay  in  the  argu- 
mentation, till  even  the  peasant  exclaims,  What  is 
the  ground  for  all  this  that  they  are  saying  ?  for  even 
if  there  were  a  transmutation  of  the  style,  and  pre- 


78  Mail,  [Book  II. 

cisely  that  we  might  deny,  it  would  be  easier  to 
imagine  a  post-exilian  alterer  of  style,  than  a  devout 
inspiration  that  would  dare,  as  a  nova  de  plume,  to 
personate  the  Lawgiver. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

man's  origin. 

Believing  the  Bible  to  be  true,  and  that  that  is  the 
grand  effect  of  varied  inspirations,  we  are  to  teach 
that  man  came  into  being  some  thousands  of  years 
ago.  We  do  not  say  that  a  person  must  be  lost  who 
denies  that  story  of  Eve,  any  more  than  that  Luther 
must  be  lost  for  scoffing  at  the  Epistle  of  James. 
The  inspiration  of  the  whole  book  is  a  doctrine,  and 
men  may  deny  many  doctrines,  and  yet  turn  from 
sin,  and  believe  in  the  Redeemer  (Matt.  xii.  32). 
But  the  denial  of  any  doctrine  is  unsafe ;  and  it  is  a 
great  luxury  to  believe,  as  we  do,  in  the  whole  of 
Scripture. 

The  objections  of  infidels  may  be  tied  in  bun- 
dles, and  that  is  the  way  to  deal  with  every  one  of 
them.  Suffered  to  go  loose,  they  break  out  at  dif- 
ferent points  under  the  pen  of  a  skilful  rhetorician, 
and  they  look  like  legion  ;  but  bring  them  to  their 
classes,  and  they  are  two  or  three.  Abraham  and 
his  knife  is  the  champion  case  of  commanded  cruelty. 
The  only  question  is,  as  to  the  command.  The  God 
that  sweeps  by  small-pox,  has  He  a  right  to  employ 
Joshua  or  Abraham  or  any  of  His  people?  And  so 
of  Eve,  it  is  idle  to  tarry  upon  her   case.     Put  in  all 


Chap.  VII.]  Mans  Origin,  79 

like  it.  There  is  Jonah  and  the  fish,  Jesus  and  the 
swine,  Christ  and  the  tree,  EHsha  and  the  axe, 
Elisha  and  the  bears,  Moses  and  the  rod,  Jonah  and 
the  gourd,  and  half  a  scorce  of  others  of  kindred 
littleness.  Now  what  is  the  real  difificulty?  We 
believe  that  Adam  was  created  a  man,  and  that  our 
first  mother  was  builded  from  a  rib  got  from  him  in 
his  slumber.  Let  us  throw  it  into  its  class.  We 
merely  insist  that  we  shall  know  the  difificulty.  Is 
it  that  the  emerging  of  our  mother  is  too  singularly 
wonderful.  What  folly !  Who  ever  heard  of  an 
un-wonderful  miracle  ?  And  that  is  the  answer  to 
that  whole  department  of  the  reasoning.  Go  back  to 
the  beginning.  The  question  is,  have  there  been 
miracles?  If  there  has  been  a  single  one,  the  won- 
der of  the  thing  is  in  its  very  nature,  and  there 
remains  but  one  other  cavil,  and  that  is  that  the  rib 
is  too  comical  a  conceit  ;  that  it  sounds  like  the  acts 
of  Vishnu  :  which  really  means  that  Jonah  with  the 
fish  and  Jesus  with  the  swine  might  really  have  been 
at  better  work  than  palming  such  pleasantries  upon 
the  Israelitish  people.  What  if  God  wills  to  try  our 
faith  by  this  very  littleness  ?  Eve  was  to  be  tempted 
by  an  apple ;  what  if  God  willed  to  try  her  love  in 
this  very  fact  of  insignificance  ?  We  cannot  tell. 
And  is  not  that  the  very  vindication?  The  Power 
that  works  the  miracle  is  alone  the  judge. 

God  ventures  two  considerations,  first,  that  the 
man  might  not  be  taken  from  the  woman,  but  the 
woman  from  the  man,  and  second,  that  their  close 
union  might  be  figured: — ''Therefore  shall  a  man 


8o  Man.  [Book  II. 

leave  father  and  mother  and  cleave  to  his  wife,  and 
they  twain  shall  be  one  flesh." 

We  believe  that  our'  present  fauna  were  created 
some  six  thousand  years  ago.  We  believe  that, 
before  that,  were  millions  of  ages.  Wc  believe  that 
palaeontological  remains  are  from  those  millions  of 
ages.  We  believe  the  second  verse  (Gen.  i.)  de- 
scribes a  blighted  planet,  after  it  had  undergone  one 
of  its  many  catastrophes.  We  believe  that  the 
dark  hulk  was  the  subject  of  a  six  days'  miracle. 
We  believe  that  the  first  relieved  the  Stygian  dark- 
ness of  its  atmosphere.  We  believe  that  the  second 
cleared  it  further,  so  that  there  was  open  firmament 
between  cloud  and  sea.  We  believe  that  the  third 
reduced  the  sea  in  part  of  the  planet  and  created 
our  present  continents,  and  that  then,  forthwith,  on 
the  wet  earth,  plants  were  created.  We  believe  that 
the  fourth  cleared  away  the  cloud,  and  warm  sun- 
shine fell  upon  our  globe.  On  the  fifth  came  fish 
and  fowl,  and  on  the  sixth,  all  land  animals,  and 
eminently  man.  This  is  our  cosmogony.  If  any 
scientist  ridicule  it,  he  must  do  it  for  something  un- 
natural in  the  detail.  We  scorn  the  natural  when 
we  are  dealing  with  miraculous  acts.  Water,  it  may 
be  said,  would  take  months  instead  of  hours  to 
travel  from  the  land  into  the  sea.  We  never  pro- 
posed that  it  should  travel.  Tw.enty-four  hours 
were  too  much  for  God.  Like  the  rib  of  Eve  these 
things  were  allegories.  They  consumed  six  days 
to  make  the  bolder  pageant.  The  God  who 
created  out  of  nothing  could  put  the  seas  into  their 


Chap.  VII.]  Mans   Origin.  8 1 

place.  And  there  are  sentences  in  the  narrative 
that  seem  to  have  been  overlooked  ;  ''  Every  plant  " 
— how?  by  evolution?  Infinitely  the  other  way. 
There  is  a  labor  in  these  sentences  that  has  hardly 
succeeded  with  the  exegete.  It  tells  of  a  creation 
immediate,  and,  as  though  of  cultivated ^xq\\^\.\\?,.  We 
believe  that  whole  forests  stood  up  between  suns. 
We  believe  that  Eve  cultivated  cultivated  flowers, 
and  if  anybody  asks  what  w^e  mean  by  that,  we  quote 
the  passage,  "  Each  plant,  before  it  was  in  the 
earth,  and  each  herb  before  it  grew  ;  "  for  there  had 
never  been  rain  and  had  never  been  cultivation,  and 
yet  there  sprang  things  betokening  both  ;  for  listen 
to  the  language,  "  God  had  not  caused  it  to  rain 
upon  the  earth,  and  there  had  been  no  man  to  till 
the  ground."  We  are  not  to  mistake  the  idea;  for 
the  passage  goes  on.  Afterward  both  instruments 
came  afield.  "  Vapor  went  up,"  and  there  came  the 
usual  watering  of  the  ground,  and  ''  God  breathed 
into  man  the  breath  of  life,"  and  lo,  the  gardener 
came  upon  the  planet  ! 

That  man,  therefore,  was  created  like  the  plants, 
and  that  Eve  was  made  out  of  a  rib,  has  not  only 
room  to  be  believed  by  the  absence  of  their  phos- 
phatic  bones  from  among  other  less  durable  fossils, 
and  of  anything  like  neighbor  beasts  constituting  a 
missing  link,  but  has  every  claim  to  be  believed, 
for  even  Darwin  needs  an  original  creation  (Var. 
An.  and  PL,  pp.  20,  21,  24),  and  why  there  could 
have  been  but  one,  we  never  could  see  on  the  part 
of  a  Being  capable  of  any. 


82  Man.  [Book  II. 

If  creation  was  originally  a  miracle  (Heb.  xi.  3), 
why  might  not  God  repeat  it  ?  And  as  to  the  story 
of  Eve,  we  end  now  with  a  single  justification. 
The  God  that  made  an  ^%%,  and  brings  chickens  into 
the  world  by  such  a  comic  process  of  incubation  ; 
the  God  that  made  a  hive,  and  created  that  unfor- 
tunate community,  the  ridiculous  and  much  injured 
drones  ;  the  God  that  made  a  bug,  to  all  intents 
and  purposes  a  bug  in  look,  but  really  a  bean  ;  the 
God  of  still  ruder  freaks  in  the  management  and 
make  and  laws  both  of  the  flora  and  fauna  of  His 
kingdom,  why  could  He  not  make  Eve  out  of  a  rib, 
just  as  probably  as  Christ  could  spit  upon  the  ground 
and  make  clay  of  the  spittle,  and  anoint  the  eyes  of 
the  blind  man  with  the  clay  ? 

We  do  not  teach  that  the  man  who  denies  about 
the  rib  will  have  perished,  but  we  do  say  that,  like 
a  stitch  in  a  stocking,  it  is  perilous  to  unravel  rev- 
elation, and  that  the  man  convinced  of  it  as  a  whole, 
is  the  happy  man  in  the  possession  of  his  religion. 

CHAPTER   VIII. 
man's  fall. 

The  central  idea  of  the  gospel  is,  that  a  man  will 
be  saved  for  the  sufferings  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  that 
the  man  who  will  be  saved  is  one  who  becomes 
better,  at  once  by  resisting  sin,  and,  as  the  base  of 
all,  by  crying  to  God  for  help  for  the  sake  of  the 
Redeemer.  This  is  the  most  that  can  be  known  of 
practical  salvation. 


Chap.  VIIL]  Mans  Fall.  %'i^ 

Of  what  need  then,  it  may  be  exclaimed,  is  the 
Garden  of  Eden  ?  And  it  may  be  rejoined,  Of  no 
need  that  shall  entitle  any  such  narrative  of  the 
Bible  to  a  vital  place  in  our  deliverance. 

Who  shall  say  that  if  the  creation  occupied  one 
week,  the  man  who  spreads  it  into  centuries  can 
never  be  forgiven  ? 

We  ought  to  be  careful  where  we  lay  our  empha- 
sis. 

Suppose  a  man  denies  Adam.  Suppose  he  holds 
that  all  was  a  myth.  Suppose  he  believes  in  a  pre- 
historic species,  and  that  the  race  was  evolved,  and 
that  its  progress  was  written  upon  the  rocks.  His- 
tory is  of  no  such  value  as  that  a  mistake  like  that 
can  shut  heaven  or  alter  the  one  condition  of  a  man's 
forgiveness.  And  suppose  we  go  further,  and  sin  is 
denied,  I  mean  that  puzzle  of  original  sinfulness; 
suppose  a  man  believes  that  we  were  born  like 
Gabriel,  with  just  the  character  with  which  we  were 
intended  to  begin,  and  that  our  need  of  Christ 
comes  from  our  feebleness,  and  that  our  refusal  to 
receive  His  help  is  the  catastrophe  that  we  call  ruin, 
who  will  say  that  he  must  necessarily  perish?  Who 
will  say  that  he  may  not  sweep  all  Eden  as  a  myth, 
and  yet  be,  like  Pelagius  himself,  an  eminent  be- 
liever? 

Who  can  limit  the  Almighty?  And  yet  the  story 
of  our  creation,  and  the  story  of  our  fall,  and  the 
story  of  our  rise  again  by  what  was  done  on  Calvary, 
are  all  best  for  us  when  we  receive  them  as  they  are. 
There  is  a  loss   in  any   mutilation.      That   Eve  ate 


84  •  Man.  [Book  II. 

the  forbidden  fruit  puts  me  in  my  place  as  a  man 
born  a  sinner.  And  that  I  was  born  a  sinner 
explains  to  me  why  I  am  so  stupid  about  any- 
thing better.  That  a  yelping  infant,  that  shows 
passion  from  the  very  threshold  of  his  birth,  is  clean 
as  a  white  paper,  is  no  very  sanctifying  idea.  That 
I  was  altogether  born  in  sin  (Ps.  li.  5),  helps  me  in 
my  confession,  and,  besides  explaining  the  fact, 
deepens  the  sense  of  universal  evil. 

Nor  are  we  to  be  moved  a  whit  by  any  ridicule. 
That  Eve  ruined  millions  by  an  apple,  sounds  not 
half  so  fanciful  as  that  Christ  saved  millions  after 
hosts  of  them  were  dead. 

The  fact  is,  how  dare  men  judge  ! 
We  have  capped  the  boldest  pinnacle.  We  have 
said  in  the  teeth  of  science,  The  Bible  is  a  primer 
for  your  facts,  and,  The  Bible  is  a  horn-book  for 
our  morals.  Catch  it  tripping  and  we  yield  ;  show 
any  absolute  defect  and  we  give  it  up.  And  when 
we  have  survived  all  this,  and  our  book  has  buried 
cart  loads  of  scientific  trifling ;  when  we  have  seen 
the  Vedas  of  the  race  hide  their  heads  before  its 
unsullied  righteousness,  to  bid  us  despair  on  account 
of  its  fancifulness,  is  absurd  to  an  extreme.  That 
Christ  drove  the  demons  into  the  swine  is  no  more 
fanciful  to  me  than  the  fluke  in  a  sheep,  or  the  bot 
in  a  horse,  or  the  gad  upon  an  ox's  back  or  any 
other  queer  discovery  of  our  soberest  un folders  of 
the  sciences. 

But  while  we  go  in  for  the  literal  acceptance  of 
the  documents,  and  for  this,  if  for  no  other  reason, 


Chap.  VIIL]  Mails  Fall,  85 

that  there  is  no  other  from  which  grave  men  will 
not  ultimately  return,  we  are  utterly  opposed  to  that 
form  of  departure  which  develops  what  the  Bible 
says,  and  puts  it  into  shapes  that  seem  fuller  and 
more  reasonable. 

Such  is  that  theory  of  the  Reformed,  that  Adam 
was  our  "  federal  head." 

The  difficulty  aimed  at  is  justice.  How  can  it  be 
just  in  God  to  punish  us  for  the  sin  of  our  parents? 
But  can  we  support  a  chain  by  adding  to  its  links? 
If  a  covenant  was  made  with  Adam,  and  he  knew 
that  he  would  damn  his  children,  that  makes  his 
infamy  greater,  but  how  can  it  be  just  to  us  ?  The 
question  rushes  to  our  lips,  Where  do  we  hear  of  a 
covenant  ?  In  a  doctrine  simply  revealed,  and  which 
we  would  not  dream  of  without  the  Scriptures,  how 
absurd  to  take  anything  but  what  they  say;  and 
there  is  not  a  lisp  in  Scriptureof  a*' federal  relation." 
Rival  teachers  have  noticed  this,  and  taught  the 
equally  unknown  idea  that  men  were  somehow  in 
Adam,  and  that  .when  Eve  reached  up  into  the  tree, 
I  had  a  hand  in  it  in  actual  inculpation  (see  Shedd's 
TheoL). 

No  wonder  that  infidels  blaspheme. 

When  will  we  ever  learn  that  the  strict  Scripture 
is  all  that  we  possess?  W^e  know  what  Adam  did, 
and  we  know  what  we  do  from  the  day  that  we  are 
born,  and  we  know  that  one  is  the  consequence 
of  the  other  (i  Cor.  xv.  22).  But  why  it  is  the 
consequence,  and  what  Adam  knew,  and  whether  he 
knew  anything  except  what  we   are   told ;    whether 


86  Man,  [Book  If. 

he  conceived  of  a  child,  or  what  a  child  would  be, 
born  small  and  feeble  as  he  had  not  been ;  or,  if  he 
had  many,  how  his  soul  and  their  souls  would  have 
any  interest  in  common,  it  is  sheer  inanity  to  guess  ; 
and,  therefore,  covenant  or  no  covenant,  it  is  miserable 
work  to  build  any  theory  whatever.  We  know  two 
things, — First,  that  like  begettings  are  universal  in 
nature,  and,  second,  that,  in  the  instance  of  man, 
they  are  Scriptural  and  just ;  but  why  they  are  just, 
and,  therefore,  why  they  are  natural,  we  do  not 
begin  to  know,  any  more  than  why  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  atones  for  the  sins  of  His  people. 

This  then  is  our  doctrine  of  imputation.  Adam 
sinned,  and  we  have  borne  his  iniquity.  And  all 
we  know  about  its  reasons  are  the  two  simple  facts, 
— first,  that  it  is  natural,  the  likeness  of  the  thing 
running  all  through  nature  ;  and,  second,  that  it  is 
just,  this  justice  being  the  essential  fact ;  but  why  it 
is  just,  lying,  like  the  origin  of  evil,  outside  of 
thought,  and  to  be  trusted  piously  to  the  administra- 
tion of  the  Most  High. 

Recollect,  our  great  challenge  is  that  more  be 
produced  from  the  Bible. 

CHAPTER  IX. 
man's    chief    end. 

We  have  already  seen  that  righteousness,  as  an 
English  word,  has  three  distinct  significances.  First, 
it  means  a  quality  of  two  emotions.  Second,  it 
means  the  emotion  that  possesses  the   quality;  and, 


Chap.  IX.]  Mans  Chief  End,  Sy 

third,  the  character  which  has  the  habit  of  such  an 
emotion.  We  have  denied  that  righteousness  was 
the  Reformed  Protestant's  righteousness,  viz.,  a 
something  that  can  stand  before  the  law  ;  and  we 
have  admitted  that  it  might  mean  a  putative  right- 
eousness, not  one  imputed  from  Christ,  but  one,  Hke 
hoHness  and  cleanness  (Mark  v*.  20,  Ps.  Ixxiii.  i), 
called  so  ex  concessit,  and  really  that  condition  of  less 
sinfulness  which  is  the  germ  and  earnest  of  a  perfect 
righteousness,  to  which  it  may  at  length  attain. 

We  have  seen,  also,  that  righteousness  was  the 
highest  good,  and  it  was  easy  to  distinguish  that  this 
was  not  the  first  righteousness,  but  the  third.  It  is 
not  the  highest  good  that  there  should  be  one  right- 
eous emotion,  but  the  habit  of  it.  Righteousness, 
therefore,  in  the  sense  of  character,  is  the  highest 
good  either  of  God  or  man. 

But  it  is  not  all  settled  yet.  Wliose  character  are 
we  considering?  The  character  of  an  ant,  if  w^e 
could  imagine  a  conscience,  is  not  as  important  as 
my  character ;  and  my  character  is  not  so  important 
as  my  city's  ;  and  my  city's  is  not  so  important  as 
the  world's  ;  and  the  w^orJd's,  present  and  past,  is  not 
so  important  as  the  character  of  the  Almighty.  The 
character  of  God  therefore,  is  the  highest  good  either 
for  Himself  or  the  creature. 

But  what  do  I  mean  by  my  proposition  ?  Do  I 
mean  in  the  abstract?  Why  of  course  it  is.  There 
is  more  of  God,  and  therefore,  more  in  His  character. 

Or  do  I  mean  that  the  righteousness  of  God  is  the 
highest  good  to  me  or  to  any  of  His  creatures? 


SS  Man.  [Book  II. 

And  even  here  there  are  two  senses.  Do  I  mean 
that  I  as  an  honest  thinker  admit  that  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  is  the  highest  good,  or  do  I  mean  that 
it  is  my  highest  good?  I  mean  this  latter,  and  I 
mean,  not  that  it  does  the  very  topmost  good  forme 
in  its  righteous  administration,  but  (to  come  now  to 
the  cream  of  the  idea)  that  it  is  the  topmost  good  in 
me  ;  that  is,  that  I  am  constituted  to  love  righteous- 
ness more  than  anything  beside,  and,  therefore,  to 
be  glad  for  the  righteousness  of  God  more  than  for 
anything  else  in  the  thinkable  creation  (Ps.  Ixiii.  3). 

Then,  coming  down  in  the  inventory  of  righteous- 
ness, the  universe  would  come  next,  then  the  largest 
fractions,  then  my  planet,  then  my  country,  then  my 
town,  last  of  all  myself,  for  though,  as  a  personal  thing, 
my  own  righteousness  is  my  highest  good,  two  things 
are  to  be  said  about  that :  first,  that  it  is  my  highest 
righteousness  to  prefer  the  world's,  and  secondly, 
that  a  pious  conscience  will  find  more  joy  in  the  mul- 
titude, than  seeing  my  own  soul  on  the  way  to  the 
Kingdom.  A  missionary  for  an  age  in  India  might 
surely  be  forgiven  for  prizing  the  righteousness  of 
thousands  more  than  his  own  poor  virtue. 

But,  now,  my  subject  was  ''Man's  Chief  End,"  not 
man's  highest  good.  Man's  chief  end  is  not  the 
righteousness  of  the  Almighty,  for  how  could  we 
promote  it  ?  Man's  chief  end  is  not  even  to  glorify 
God,  for  there  follows  immediately  the  question. 
What  is  the  end  of  that?  Man's  chief  end  must  be, 
first,  some  certain  something  that  shall  be  practica- 
ble,  and,  second,  that  certain   something,   whatever 


Chap.  IX.j  Mans   Chief  End.  89 

it  be,  which,  being  practicable,  is  among  practicable 
things  the  very  highest  good.  And,  therefore,  we 
move  into  our  answer.  Man's  chiefest  end,  under 
the  direction  of  the  Most  High,  is  "  to  do  good  and 
to  communicate,"  and  that,  first  and  least,  in  making 
other  people  happy,  and  second  and  chiefest  of  all, 
in  extending  righteousness,  and  in  making  other  peo- 
ple holy  to  the  extent  of  our  power.  It  is  good  to 
know  what  our  sole  end  is.  The  sole  end  of  man, 
in  the  sense  of  the  chiefest  and  the  noblest,  is  to 
make  others  better  ;  and  the  greater  and  the  more 
sinful,  the  higher  the  act  of  leading  any  prince 
among  the  people  into  the  everlasting  kingdom. 

Converting  men  is,  therefore,  our  highest  act,  and 
damning  men  is  our  lowest,  especially  if  they  were 
poor  souls  that  had  climbed  already  into  safety ;  for 
"  whosoever  shall  stumble  one  of  these  little  ones 
that  believe  in  me,  it  were  better  for  him  that  a  mill- 
stone were  hanged  about  his  neck,  and  that  he  were 
drowned  in  the  depth  of  the  sea,  than  that  he  should 
stumble  one  of  these  little  ones  "  (Matt,  xviii.  6). 

It  is  curious  how  documents  that  are  admirable  in 
themselves,  become  deified  when  long  cherished. 
The  Papists  make  an  idol  of  the  Vulgate,  and  seem 
to  be  tempted  more  toward  Jerome  sometimes 
than  toward  the  great  originals;  the  Jews  wor- 
shipped the  Septuagint,  and  even  our  Protest- 
ant Fathers,  warned  as  they  were  against  super- 
stition, fell  under  the  influence  of  their  own  books. 
'^The  Shorter  Catechism,"  modern  as  it  is,  hedges 
itself  with  the  same   reverence.     And   when  it  says, 


90  Man.  [Book  \\. 

**  The  chief  end  of  man,"  which  might  philosophi- 
cally be  expected  to  be  one,  divides  itself  into  two, 
and  when  it  makes  these  two  a  glorification  or  dis- 
play on  the  one  side,  and  an  enjoyment  in  our  own 
poor  spirit  on  the  other,  we  feel  no  shame  for  this  be- 
ginning of  our  symbol;  we  think  it  almost  profane 
to  censure  it ;  we  would  go  on  teaching  it  to  our 
children  if  this  error  were  pointed  out  ;  we  would 
hide  its  better  parts  by  defending  its  worst,  and  we 
tempt  sharp  unbelievers,  who,  when  gravelled  by  a 
mistake  like  this,  sweep  all  the  book,  and  say,  like 
Mill,  "  I  will  call  no  being  good  who  is  not  what  I 
mean  when  I  apply  that  epithet  to  my  fellow-men  " 
(Exam,  of  Ham.,  Boston  ed.,  vol.  i.  p.  131)  ;  or  more 
tellingly,  like  Spencer,  ''  It  is  difficult  to  conceal 
(one's)  repugnance  to  a  creed  which  tacitly  ascribes 
to  the  Unknowable  a  love  of  adulation  such  as 
would  be  despised  in  a  human  being  "  (First  Prin- 
ciples, p.  120).  So  that  we  are  hardly  irresponsible 
for  Mill's  profanity  when  he  adds  to  what  we  have 
quoted  above  :  ''And  if  such  a  being  can  sentence 
me  to  Hell  for  not  so  calling  Him,  to  Hell  I 
will  go." 

CHAPTER  X. 

MAN   IN    god's    image. 

Our  first  book  was  on  the  subject  of  righteous- 
ness, and  we  found  that  righteousness  was  the  high- 
est good.  Our  second  book  is  on  the  subject  of  man, 
and  we  find  that  righteousness  is  man's  highest  good. 


Chap.  X.]         Man  in   God's  linage,  91 

Our  third  book  is  on  the  subject  of  God,  and  we 
are  to  find  again  that  righteousness  goes  to  the  sum- 
mit even  here.  How  do  we  find  all  this?  Simply 
by  one  unchanging  consciousness.  In  fact,  the  sec- 
ond book  is  the  ^^^  both  of  the  third  and  of  the 
first :  in  fact  it  is  the  basis  of  half  its  own  asser- 
tions. What  do  I  know  of  man  except  through 
what  I  call  myself  ?  What  do  I  know  of  righteous- 
ness except  as  of  my  own  righteousness  ?  The 
figures  walking  around  me  are  as  invisible  as  God, 
except  as  I  infer  them  as  other  selves.  What  is 
God  but  "the  Big  Injun"  of  the  savage?  Revela- 
tion helps;  but  what  is  that  but  information  for  my 
consciousness?  Think  of  all  His  attributes.  What 
is  will  but  my  will?  and  power  but  my  power  in- 
finitely exaggerated?  What  is  intelligence  but  my 
intelligence  ?  infinitely  changed,  I  know,  and  sub- 
ject to  infinite  adjustments  as  inferred  from  mine, 
but  in  those  very  adjustments  showing  their  origin  ; 
for  when  we  begin  to  adjust,  we  drift  away  from 
clear  ideas. 

That  man  is  in  the  image  of  God  is,  therefore, 
the  fact  on  the  basis  of  which  we  can  move  from  one 
of  these  books  to  the  other. 


BOOK  III. 

GOD. 


CHAPTER  I. 

god's  conscience. 

If  it  be  the  fact  that  out  sole  idea  of  right  is  from 
our  conscience,  and  that  our  sole  idea  of  God,  in  His 
essential  attributes,  is  derived  from  ourselves,  we 
must  either  ascribe  some  of  our  poorer  attributes  to 
our  Maker,  or  else  unite  with  His  word  in  giving 
Him  a  conscience,  and  making  it  supreme.  But  if 
He  has  a  conscience,  and  it  is  His  highest  good,  it 
must  either  have  the  same  righteousness  as  ours, 
which  our  conscience  seems  to  declare,  or  else  He 
must  have  some  other  righteousnesses  for  which  we 
are  incapable  of  worshipping  Him,  and  which  His 
word  also  seems  to  forbid,  for  we  are  commanded  to 
be  "  holy  as  He  is  holy,"  and  told  of  essential  and 
innermost  right  by  the  Apostle  John  in  the  unflinch- 
ing language,  "which  thing  is  true  in  Him  and  in 
you  "  (i  Jo.  ii.  8). 

God's  conscience,  therefore,  dictates,  as  His  high- 
est motive,  (i)  benevolence  to  other  beings,  and  (2) 
a  love,  with  all  His  might,  of  the  character  of  holi- 
ness. 


Chap.  II.]  All  Else  in   God.  93 

It  is  blasphemous,  therefore,  to  imagine  that 
God's  highest  motive  is  display,  or  that  His  chiefest 
object  is  Himself,  or  that  a  co-ordinate  principle  is 
vengeance,  or  that  He  does  as  He  pleases;  in  that 
He  does  least  as  He  pleases  of  all  existences  (of 
course  in  the  lighter  sense),  and  most,  in  everything 
He  does,  in  simple  obedience  to  the  principle  of 
right. 

CHAPTER  II. 

ALL    ELSE    IN    GOD. 

To  take  two  emotions  and  say,  All  else  in  God 
is  secondary,  is  a  strong  way  to  speak,  but  a  useful 
thing  to  consider. 

In  the  first  place,  without  these  two  there  could 
be  no  creation  ;  in  the  second  place,  without  them 
there  could  be  no  sovereignty  ;  and  in  the  third  place, 
no  love  or  worship.  These  are  grand  points.  Cre- 
ation and  sovereignty  and  a  claim  of  love  by  God  are 
all  impossible  without  these  two  emotions. 

I.  For,  first,  as  to  the  creation,  God  has  infinite 
power,  and  could  create  in  an  instant  all  this  vast 
universe.  Judging  from  our  own  gifts,  He  has  mind 
and  will  and  purpose  in  every  conceivable  degree. 
But  what,  out  of  the  womb  of  time,  could  set  this 
vast  machinery  afloat  ?  We  have  seen  that  there 
is  no  good  possible  except  emotion.  And  as  to 
all  possible  emotion,  except  goodness,  God  is 
sufificient  to  Himself.  Let  His  emotions  be  what 
they  will,  they   cannot    give   birth    to    a    universe 


94  God.  [Book  III. 

till  we  come  to  two,  and  those  two  constitute  His 
righteousness,  a  love  for  the  welfare  of  others,  and 
a  love,  on  its  own  account,  for  the  principle  of 
holiness.  All  else  in  God  would  be  sterile.  These 
are  the  germinant  traits  in  Jehovah's  kingship. 

II.  But,  second,  He  could  not  be  a  King.  What 
could  make  Him  such?  He  might  destroy  me.  He 
might  build  Tophet  high.  He  might  own  me,  in  a 
certain  mechanic  sense  :  but  if  Satan  owned  me, 
would  that  make  him  King?  Sovereignty  may  best 
be  defined  as  a  right  to  rule.  Would  God  have  a 
right  to  rule  if  He  had  no  conscience  ?  And  would  I 
not  have  a  right  to  rebel  if  I .  could  plunge  into 
nothingness  from  such  a  brutal  Deity  ? 

It  is  idle  to  exalt  sovereignty  in  God  unless  we 
make  the  essence  of  His  sovereignty  to  consist  in 
His  perfect  character. 

III.  And  then,  of  love.  How  can  I  love  God 
except  for  righteousness?  Can  I  love  Him  for  His 
power?  Our  Saviour  lifts  this  commandment  as  the 
very  highest  and  the  best  (Matt.  xxii.  37,  38).  But 
if  I  am  to  love  God  as  my  supremest  object,  how 
can  I  translate  that  except  as  of  my  love  for 
righteousness?  Suppose  there  were  no  God,  that  I 
must  still  love.  And  suppose  Satan  were  God.  He 
might  be  strong,  and  he  might  be  wise,  and  might 
have  every  mechanic  trait  to  the  extent  of  my  con- 
ception,— for  he  has  :  but  would  that  call  forth  my 
love  ?  Would  it  not,  my  hate  ?  So  then  the  com- 
mand, "  Thou  shalt  love  God,"  is  but  the  command, 
Thou  shalt  love  holiness,  and  we  are  back  at   our 


Chap.  II.]  All  Else  in  God.  95 

beginning,  that  the  love  of  others  and  the  love  of 
holiness  are  God's  highest  good,  and  His  only  claim 
either  to  create  or  govern. 

We  see  then  how  trifling  the  definition,  that  God 
is  an  innate  idea,  and  that  our  innate  idea  of  God  is 
a  sense  of  responsibility  and  dependence  (Hodge, 
Syst.  TheoL,  vol.  i.  pp.  23,  195). 

In  the  first  place,  God  is  no  one  idea  at  all,  but  a 
framework  of  inferences  from  man  and  the  Bible. 
In  the  second  place.  He  is  not  primarily  a  supreme, 
begetting  a  sense  of  responsibility  and  dependence, 
but  He  is  primarily  good.  And  in  the  third  place,  a 
supremacy  is  not  innate,  but  inferred,  and  a  sense  of 
responsibility  is  a  much  delayed  and  a  most 
patiently  increased  experience. 

Light,  too,  is  shed  upon  that  burst  of  enthusiasm 
which  followed  the  answer  (so  we  are  told)  of  one 
of  the  youngest  men  in  Westminster.  The  question 
had  come  in  turn,  *'  What  is  God  ?  "  And  there  was 
a  pause!  when  the  young  man,  whose  name  is 
given,  stood  up  and  uttered  the  words  which  have 
gone  unchanged  into  the  catechism,  ''God  is  a 
Spirit." — First,  we  dissent  from  that.  God  is  not  a 
Spirit.  He  is  called  a  Spirit  often,  but  not  in  cir- 
cumstances to  make  it  true  when  a  name  is  sought 
for  a  supreme  definition  of  the  Deity.  When  a 
name  was  needed  to  mean  life,  by  Old  Testament 
people,  a  word  was  chosen  that  meant  breath,  and  it 
became  the  word  that  meant  life,  and  men  forgot, 
perhaps,  its  original  signification.  When  a  name 
was  further  needed  to  mean  soul,  a  word   was  again 


g6  God.  [Book  III. 

chosen  that  meant  breatJi,  and  sank  down  again  in 
the  uses  of  the  Hebrew.  Time  advanced,  and  they 
needed  a  farther  name,  meaning  spirit,  and  with 
singular  steadiness  of  thought  they  chose  breath 
again,  and  our  Enghsh  spirit,  from  spiro,  is  a  good 
reminder  of  this  most  persevering  tendency. 
''  Spirit,"  therefore,  is  a  good  name  for  man  ^  in  fact 
it  is  a  modest  name,  and  reminds  us  of  our  origin 
from  the  breath  of  the  Almighty.  And  it  is  a  good 
name  for  God  where  that  breath  is  to  be  remem- 
bered, as  for  example  where  He  is  called  the  Holy 
Breath  (Ps.  li.  ji,  Is.  Ixiii.  lo)  because  He  breathes 
into  our  hearts  a  holy  influence  ;  but  to  say  that 
"  God  is  a  Spirit  "  is  about  like  saying  in  a  general 
and  supreme  account  of  Him,  "God  is  an  Arm 
(Ps.  Ixxi.  1 8,  Is.  li.  9),  infinite  and  eternal  and  un- 
changeable in  His  being,  wisdom,  power,  holiness, 
justice,  goodness  and  truth.'*  How  much  better  to 
say,  ''  God  is  that  one  self-existent  being,  creator  of 
all  others,  a  conscious  person,  infinite  in  power, 
knowledge  and  duration,  whose  highest  good  and 
sovereignty  are  His  absolute  righteousness." 

But  some  one  is  laughing  all  this  time,  and  sup- 
posing that  we  forget  that  "  God  is  a  Spirit "  is  a 
text  from  Scripture  (Jo.  iv.  24).  We  come  to  that 
next.  *'  God  is  a  Spirit  "  is  a  text  in  English,  but 
in  the  Greek  the  lanefuafre  is  reversed.  No  text  in 
Scripture  can  be  found  that  calls  God  a  Spirit,  in 
any  general  connection.  Christ  is  speaking  of  wor- 
ship. He  tells  the  woman  of  Samaria  that  the  true 
worshipper  must    worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and 


Chap.  II.J  All  Else  in    God.  97 

truth  :  and  then,  as  an  enforcement  of  tliis,  He  says, 
"  Spirit  is  God."  That  is,  a  breath,  in  its  last  and 
highest  sense,  is  God  in  the  human  heart :  and 
therefore  it  is,  so  He  is  intending  to  say,  that  the 
true  worshipper  must  worship  the  Father  in  this  God 
part.  To  that  old-fashioned  argument  that  the 
article  calls  for  the  inversion,  the  still  more  old- 
fashioned  grammar,  carefully  prepared  by  Middle- 
ton,  gives  just  the  necessary  exceptions.  I  usually 
say,  "  The  knife  is  steel,"  the  article  cleaving  to  the 
subject  ;  but  if  some  fool,  on  high  sophistic  ground, 
would  make  the  knife  one  thing,  and  steel  another, 
it  would  be  absolute  good  English  to  say,  Steel  is 
the  knife.  It  would  be  absolute  good  Greek  to  say, 
"Spirit  is  God."  It  is  absolute  good  sense  to  say, 
"  God  was  the  Word,"  when  the  Apostle  wished  to 
deny  that  there  was  a  separate  Logos.  And  so  Paul 
spoke  good  Greek,  which  is  for  once  not  subjected 
to  inversion  (E.  V.),  when  he  imagines  the  mistake 
of  "supposing  that  gain  is  godliness  "  (i  Tim.  vi.  5). 

That  "God  is  a  Spirit,"  therefore,  is  a  blunder  in 
the  young  assembly-man,  I  mean  if  he  would  ennoble 
the  Almighty ;  and  then  there  is  great  weakness 
again  in  the  closing  stretch  of  the  definition,  where, 
instead  of  saying,  "in  His  righteousness,"  or,  if  he 
thought  better,  "in  His  holiness,"  or,  as  was  cer- 
•tainly  best,  in  some  one  name  for  the  one  character 
of  Jehovah's  "  goodness,"  he  spins  it  out  into  a  list, 
and  spoils  the  terseness  of  his  sentence  by  the  re- 
duplication, "  holiness,  justice,  goodness  and  truth." 

There  remains  nothing  more,  except  a  guard  upon 


98  God,  [Book  III. 

the  too  extreme  pushing  of  this  chapter.  If  God 
were  not  so  great,  He  would  not  be  so  good.  As 
we  have  already  seen,  an  ant,  furnished  with  a  con- 
science, though  that  conscience  be  unstained,  could 
not  be  so  high  in  holiness  as  God  Almighty.  "  God 
is  love,"  and  there  is  nothing  worth  while  in  His 
existence,  except  for  the  one  trait  of  His  infinite 
righteousness.  And  yet,  though  all  other  attributes 
of  God  are  secondary,  they  have  one  grand  part  to 
play,  viz.,  that  they  make  this  one  primary.  The 
doctrine  already  taught,  that  God's  holiness  is  the 
highest  good  either  for  Him  or  for  His  people,  gauges 
itself  simply  by  the  measure  that  He  is  greater  than 
His  people.  And  Gabriel,  who  is  as  holy  as  his 
Maker,  is  not  as  holy  as  his  Maker  in  one  prevalent 
sense,  viz.,  that  he  is  not  as  great  as  his  Maker;  for 
God,  as  the  origin  of  all  things,  sheds  His  other 
glories  upon  this  one,  and  His  power  and  wisdom 
and  immensity,  though  otherwise  of  no  account, 
raise  to  their  own  infinite  pitch  this  sole  ground  for 
His  being  either  loved  or  worshipped. 

CHAPTER  III. 
man's  rights  over  god. 

If  God  be  greater  than  any  other  being,  and, 
therefore,  holier,  not  simply  because  He  is  the  ori- 
gin of  holiness  in  others,  but  because  He  has  a  larger 
conscience,  there  follows,  what  is  seldom  thought 
of,  that  God  has  heavier  obligations,  and  that  the 
rights  of  man  over  God,  are  higher  than  the  rights  of 


Chap.  III.]     Mans  Rights  over  God.  99 

God  over  any  of  His  creatures.  God  could  sin  more 
against  man,  than  man  could  possibly  sin  against 
the  rights  of  his  Creator. 

There  is  something  wonderful  in  this. 

I  have  a  right  to  God's  utmost  mercy. 

Let  us  disabuse  ourselves  of  certain  things. 

The  idea  that  Heaven  is  all  of  grace,  is  not  true 
in  the  grander  thinking.  Where  grace  means 
pardon  of  the  sinner,  and  where  the  meaning  is  that 
God  grants  the  pardon  out  of  mercy,  the  word  is 
well  enough.  For,  of  course,  the  law  condemns,  and 
gives  us  no  manner  of  right  under  its  violated  cove- 
nant. But  to  talk  of  a  something  that  is  of  mere 
mercy,  is  really  to  talk  of  God's  highest  obligation. 

A  Holier  than  any  of  the  creatures  is  simply  one 
who  has  more  of  a  benevolence  for  others  and  more 
of  a  love  for  the  principle  of  holiness.  These  are 
not  sovie  of  a  long  list  of  duties,  but  they  are  all  of 
them.  They  are  the  emotions  which  are  God's 
highest  good  ;  and  they  are  the  things  in  the  Most 
High  Avhich  are  His  sole  obligation.  Then,  obliga- 
tion being  the  counterpart  of  right,  we  come  easily 
to  this  idea,  that  the  right  of  man  over  God  is  a 
right  to  His  utmost  mercy,  there  being  no  limit  to 
its  length,  except  that  higher  love,  a  love  to  holi- 
ness. 

Man's  rights  over  God,  therefore,  are  that  he  shall 
be  made  the  happiest  possible  and  the  holiest  pos- 
sible within  the  bounds  of  the  creation. 


lOO  God,  [Book  III. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

god's  rights  over  man. 

God  cannot  get  possession  of  a  man  by  creating 
him.  Under  other  arrangement  of  His  power  than 
simple  hoHness,  that  act  would  be  an  outrage.  I 
have  a  right  to  nothingness,  till  I  am  properly 
brought  out.  To  that  strongest  complaint  of 
wickedness,  that  God  had  no  right  to  create  when 
He  saw  that  I  would  perish,  we  may  reply  with  an 
admission,  that  God  had  no  right  to  create  unless 
benevolence  and  that  other  virtue,  not  only  per- 
mitted, but  demanded  my  being  brought  into  being. 

That  is  the  simplest  answer  after  all. 

**  The  Lord  is  righteous  in  all  His  ways,  and  holy 
in  all  His  works."  He  is  a  King,  but  simply  as  an 
executioner  of  holiness.  He  tells  us  so  with  care. 
*' Justice  and  judgment  are  the  habitation  of  His 
throne." 

It  is  an  instance  of  how  mad  men  are,  when,  in  our 
holiest  books,  we  take  a  sentence  from  Paul,  "  Hath 
not  the  potter  authority  over  the  clay,"  and  actually 
with  a  sober  face,  ascribe  that  to  the  Almighty. 
God's  rights  over  man  are  simply  to  treat  him 
righteously.  And  to  paint  the  potter  over  the  clay, 
and  to  put  God  for  the  potter,  and  to  imagine  Him 
to  turn  upon  the  wheel  a  something  for  agony  and 
shame,  and  to  do  it  out  of  *'  authority,"  is  really  the 
greatest  atrocity  in  any  language.  Paul  never 
dreamed  of  it.     Indeed,  if  we   translate  the   Greek, 


Chap.  V.]        Best  Possible   Universe.  loi 

and  notice  all  the  particles,  we  find  he  was  teaching 
the  very  opposite.  That  chapter  is  one  of  the 
grandest  in  the  Bible  (see  Author's  Com.).  And, 
instead  of  Paul  teaching  a  right  to  create  devils,  he 
is  shocking  the  saints  by  such  an  idea.  If  we  exam- 
ine the  passage,  we  will  find  that  he  pits  one  mad- 
ness against  another,  and  is  simply  telling  the  *'  Vain 
Man,"  that,  as  against  one  extreme,  he  might  as 
well  go  to  the  other,  and  that  stark  authority  in  God 
is  no  more  vain  a  madness,  than  the  want  of  all 
power  either  to  damn  or  govern. 

The  rights  of  God  over  man  are,  therefore,  the 
two  emotions.  He  has  a  right  to  love  them  as  ob- 
jects of  benevolence,  and  then,  as  a  still  higher  taste, 
to  cherish  and  promote  the  widest  holiness. 

Besides  these,  God  has  no  rights  either  to  create 
or  minister. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  UNIVERSE,  THE  BEST   POSSIBLE. 

If  holiness  be  the  highest  good,  and  God,  unable 
to  increase  it  in  Himself,  has  for  His  highest  prac- 
tical end  its  promotion  in  others.  He  gains  that  end 
or  is  defeated  of  it.  Unless  God,  therefore,  is 
defeated  of  His  end,  the  universe  He  has  called  into 
being  is  the  holiest  He  could  have  made. 

This  has  not  been  the  common  idea. 

If  it  is  the  holiest  possible,  it  must  also  be  the 
happiest  possible,  or  we  should  be  wandering  into 


102  God.  [Book  III. 

the  thought  that  a  universe,  happier  than  this, 
could  have  been  made  out  of  one  less  holy. 

Now,  across  this  path,  comes  the  idea  that  God  is 
omnipotent.  Take  the  universe  as  it  is,  is  it  not  a 
conceded  fact  that  it  is  finite?  And  if  it  be  finite, 
how  can  it  be  the  best  possible  ?  Though  God  has 
lavished  upon  it  unspeakable  gifts,  does  it  not  end 
the  controversy  to  remember  that  He  could  lavish 
more  ?  With  all  its  assembled  wealth,  could  He  not, 
any  May  morning,  launch  upon  the  heavens  quite 
another  universe,  leaving  the  present  to  ride  in  its 
glory  besides  ?  So  we  might  imagine.  But  we  are 
stopped,  just  as  He  is,  by  certain  inevitable  reason- 
ings. In  the  first  place,  the  universe  is  finite.  Do 
what  He  can,  God  could  not  create  an  infinite  crea- 
tion. Second,  the  universe,  being  finite,  it  must 
necessarily  be  decided  what  that  limit  or  end  must 
be.  Third,  who  must  decide  that  point  ?  Fourth, 
if  God  must  decide,  must  He  not  decide  it  wisely, 
and  can  He  decide  it  wisely  unless  He  decide  it  by 
His  highest  motive?  But,  fifthly,  and  to  retort  the 
argument,  can  God  be  omnipotent  if  His  limitation 
is  such,  that,  in  case  He  should  desire  the  best  pos- 
sible universe,  by  arguments  implied  in  any  creation 
at  all  it  can  be  set  down  as  certain  that  He  could 
not  have  it? 

But  a  difficulty  that  is  more  formidable  far,  is, 
that  a  best  possible  universe  should  pretend  to  such 
a  distinction,  and  confess  all  along  the  presence  of 
iniquity.  How  are  we  to  account  for  that?  We 
have  confessed  long  ago  that  it  is  the  riddle  of  our 


Chap,  v.]        Best  Possible   Universe.  103 

being.  But  therein  lies  the  very  reply.  How  a 
good  man  can  become  a  bad  man  we  have  a  secret 
suspicion  that  none  but  the  Almighty  will  ever  fully 
conceive.  But  this  is  a  difficulty  in  there  being  a 
creation  at  all,  not  in  there  being  a  universe  which  is 
the  wisest  and  the  best. 

Fortunately  for  our  argument,  the  creation  is  a 
fact.  There  can  be  no  doubt  of  it,  and  no  doubt  of 
its  wickedness.  It  lends  its  aid  with  obstinate 
reality.  And  our  rejoinder  is  complete.  There  is 
indeed  sin  in  the  world,  but  why  is  it  there?  The 
difficulty  that  it  should  be,  under  a  compassionate 
Prince,  is  diminished  rather  than  increased  by  the 
supposition  that  it  is  necessary  to  the  best  possible 
creation. 

Our  answer,  therefore,  is  this:  It  is  the  sum  of  all 
mysteries  how  evil  came  into  the  world.  But,  being 
there,  we  have  to  treat  it  as  a  fact  ;  and,  treating  it 
as  a  fact,  we  do  so  in  four  particulars :  First,  as 
olie  that  we  cannot  understand ;  second,  as  one 
that  we  cannot  impeach,  no  man's  conscience  being 
enough  to  penetrate  the  government  of  Heaven; 
third,  as  one  that  may  be  necessary  to  the  freedom 
of  the  will ;  and,  fourth,  as  one  that  may  be  neces- 
sary to  God,  God  being  unable,  except  as  confronted 
by  evil,  to  produce  the  universe  that  shall  be  the 
wisest  and  the  best. 

With  increment  by  time,  therefore,  and  admitting 
the  principle  that  holiness  will  increase,  we  teach  the 
doctrine  that  the  holiest,  and,  therefore,  the  happiest 
creation  is  precisely  that  which  God  has  achieved. 


I04  God,  [Book  III. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

EACH  CREATURE  THE  BEST  POSSIBLE  FOR  IT. 

When  we  speak  of  the  universe,  of  course  we 
remember  the  lost,  and  when  we  speak  of  the  hap- 
piest, of  course  we  remember  rocks,  which  have  no 
happiness  at  all,  and  insects,  which  have  very  little. 
We  do  not  mean  that  Hell  is  the  best  possible  crea- 
tion, or  that  flies,  in  their  abstract  case,  are  the  hap- 
piest, for  God  could  lift  Satan  out  of  his  place,  or 
raise  a  fly  to  the  glory  of  the  blessed.  We  are  not 
speaking  of  power  or  skill  or  wisdom,  or  what  God 
could  do  for  me  if  I  stood  alone  in  the  creation. 
But  I  am  speaking  of  things  as  a  whole.  God  would 
change  a  fly  into  an  angel,  or  lift  Satan  out  of  chains, 
if  it  were  consistent  with  the  whole.  His  highest 
motive  is  to  bless ;  and,  therefore,  each  atom  that 
exists,  has  the  highest  place  that  could  be  secured 
for  it  by  the  Almighty.  ^ 

CHAPTER  VII. 

god's    DECREES. 

If  God  has  a  highest  motive,  it  follows,  as  a  logi- 
cal idea,  that  He  has  but  a  single  motive  in  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  universe  ;  for  the  higher  motive 
would  logically  absorb  the  others.  If  God  has  a 
highest  motive,  it  is  easier  to  see  that  He  must  have 
a  single  plan.  It  is  almost  tiresome,  therefore,  to 
think  how  God  has  been  confined.     His  highest  mo- 


Chap.  VI I. j  God's  Decrees.  105 

tive  being  holiness,  it  took  possession  of  Him.  He 
had  no  Hcense.  We  who  are  creatures  do  as  we 
please.  God  pleases,  to  be  sure,  to  be  holy,  but  not, 
as  we  men  claim,  to  alter  His  plan  as  seasons  roll. 
Islam's  fate  is  not  more  iron.  Back  in  the  everlast- 
ing, all  that  God  must  live  up  to  was  settled.  He 
could  no  more  alter  methods,  than  He  could  sin. 

This  is  His  Decree. 

And  if  we  were  all  happy,  no  one  would  cavil. 
It  is  where  sorrow  stands  thwart  across  our  path 
that  it  seems  a  wickedness  to  have  fixed  it  from  the 
beginning. 

And  yet  sorrow  was  a  part  of  the  plan. 

Men  try  to  escape  this  by  separating  foreknowl- 
edge. And  we  notice  God  does  separate  it  in 
many  parts  of  the  inspired  volume.  "  Him  being 
delivered  by  the  determinate  counsel  and  fore- 
knowledge of  God,  ye  have  taken  "  (Acts  iii.  23). 
That  the  crucifixion  should  be  a  divine  decree  is 
trying,  and  if  *' foreknowledge  "  can  save  anything 
of  the  bitterness,  it  is  timely,  to  say  the  least.  And 
then  notice  its  introduction  again  : — ''  Elect  accord- 
ing to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father"  (i 
Peter  i.  2),  and  again,  "  Whom  he  did  foreknow, 
them  He  also  did  predestinate"  (Rom.  viii.  29). 
''Known  unto  God  from  the  beginning  are  all  his 
works"  (Acts  XV.  18).  "God  hath  not  cast  away 
His  people  which  He  foreknew  "  (Rom.  xi.  2). 

But  then,  if  we  are  to  use  this  in  any  elenchtic 
fashion,  we  must  take  care  how  we  use  it.  Fore- 
knowledge  does   not  alter  in  the  least  the  gripe  of 


lo6  God.  [Book  III. 

the  decree.  It  was  complete.  It  was  complete 
before  we  were  born.  The  Moslem's  fate  does  not 
differ  from  it,  except  in  the  one  element.  What 
Islam  teaches  blind,  the  Bible  teaches  all  radiant 
with  tenderness  :  and  here  is  what  it  is  our  refuge  to 
say.  God  has  but  one  motive.  That  motive  is 
holiness.  He  speaks  so  much  of  foreknowledge, 
because  His  eye  runs  along  the  ages  to  see  what 
that  motive  will  create.  And  here  we  should  make 
a  full  stop.  When  we  arrive  at  the  judgment  bar 
the  first  bolt  shot  will  be,  that  holiness  fixed  all 
our  history.  When  we  gather  up  our  defence,  our 
cavil  will  die  upon  our  lips.  We  shall  find  that 
what  God  did.  Holiness  did.  As  Solomon  says, 
That  ''was  by  His  side  a  builder "  (Prov.  viii.  30, 
see  Com.).  And  though  to  unnumbered  ages 
Heaven  may  not  decipher  it,  yet  we  will  reach,  as 
Moses  reached  (though  we  may  be  for  ever  veiled  in 
the  cleft  of  the  rock),  that  all-satisfying  sentence,  *'  I 
will  show  mercy  to  whomsoever  I  can  show  mercy, 
and  have  compassion  on  whomsoever  I  can  have 
compassion  "  (Rom.  ix.  15,  see  Author's  Com.). 

The  doctrine  of  a  Decree,  therefore,  is  the  doc- 
trine that  in  an  Infinite  Nature  there  must  be  a 
highest  motive,  and,  therefore,  a  single  plan.  The 
Divine  Decree  is  that  single  plan  as  it  has  existed 
from  everlasting.  The  difficulties  in  respect  to  its 
results  must  be  met  in  this  way: — F'irst,  by  our 
ignorance.  We  are  utterly  unfit  to  judge  of  a  higher 
administration.  Second,  by  our  conscience.  Know- 
ing what  righteousness  is,  and,  being  obliged  by  the 


Chap.  VII.]  God' s  Decrees,  107 

very  necessities  of  thought  to  consider  that  as  the 
very  highest  possible  good,  we  bow  to  that  as  the 
creator  of  the  Decree,  and  teach,  even  in  the  face 
of  there  being  a  perdition,  that  love  of  others  and 
love  of  holiness  must  have  been  the  determining 
will  of  the  Creator.  Third,  by  conjecture  ;  for  though 
a  certainty  must  be  beyond  our  depth,  there  is  room 
to  guess,  that,  if  myriads  are  to  be  moral  agents, 
some  must  sin,  if  there  is  to  be  liberty  under  a  moral 
choice.  Here  there  is  the  utmost  mistiness  of  view. 
Foreknowledge  does  not  relieve  it.  Omnipotence 
vastly  deepens  it.  Holiness,  even,  increases  it.  For 
if  actual  benevolence,  and  active  promotion  of  holi- 
ness are  God's  only  end,  how  sad  my  fate,  if,  as  the 
progeny  of  such  an  end,  I  am  eternally  wicked.  And 
yet  the  monotony,  to  use  a  suggestive  word,  the  dead 
level  of  uniform  success,  the  establishment  of  a  trial, 
and  the  cloying  certainty  that  no  one  fail  in  it,  the 
pretence  that  there  is  a  moral  choice  and  that  the 
reward  of  standing  firm  in  it  is  to  be  established 
in  well  doing,  there  being  millions  of  worlds  of 
righteousness  as  we  hope,  and  no  worlds  of  misery, 
would  create  an  obscurity  in  the  idea  of  choice  that 
might  awaken  a  suspicion,  at  least,  that  that  might 
not  be  the  best  for  holiness.  And,  therefore,  that  is 
our  fourth  thought,  that  granting  the  idea  of  the 
Almighty,  that  a  love  for  others  and  a  love  for  holi- 
ness are  His  highest  end,  it  cannot  be  made  practically 
certain  that  a  universe  where  some  will  fall,  may  not 
be  the  best  to  promote  it,  and  therefore,  that  if  the 
holiest  universe  and  the  happiest'universe  spring  out 


Io8  God.  [Book  III. 

of  just  this  one  that  God  hath  ordained,  we  may 
not,  considering  our  ignorance,  dismiss  our  anxiety 
as  to  the  administration  of  Heaven. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

ANTHROPOMORPHISM. 

The  idea  of  God  as  innate  must  be  changed 
under  our  simple  reasoning  into  the  idea  that  He  is 
empirically  descried.  The  Bible  says  as  much.  "The 
invisible  things  of  Him  from  the  creation  of  the 
world  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the  things 
that  are  made,  even  His  eternal  power  and  God- 
head "  (Rom.  i.  20).  And  yet,  though  our  noblest 
ideas  of  God  are  thus  attained,  and  the  facts  of  His 
conscience  are  His  noblest  facts,  yet  there  are  dan- 
gers in  this,  just  as  in  every  extreme  of  Bible  doc- 
trine. Anthropomorphism  is  our  life  on  the  one 
hand,  just  as  it  maybe  greatly  our  ruin  on  the  other. 

Anthropomorphism  is  our  life  when  we  dismiss  a 
sovereign  Creator,  and  substitute  a  holy  one.  This 
is  a  great  advance  in  theology.  God  is  entirely 
sovereign,  but  He  is  not  sovereign  at  all,  except  as 
holy.  He  is  not  holy  at  all,  except  in  conscience. 
He  has  no  conscience  at  all,  except  like  ours.  Con- 
science is  simply  the  organ  of  two  distinguishable 
emotions,  one,  benevolence,  and  the  other,  the  love 
of  the  quality  of  right.  God  comes  quite  close. 
These  are  His  highest  end.  Power  is  very  different 
and  knowledge  is  very  different  in  man  and  his 
Creator ;  but  conscience  is  very  similar.     And  this 


Chap.  VIII.J         Anthropoinorphism.  109 

is  very  blessed,  that  the  Bible  never  says,  Be  pow- 
erful as  I  am  powerful,  or  knowing  like  Me  ;  but 
only  that  which  it  is  worth  while  to  have,  viz.,  holi- 
ness,— "  Be  ye  holy  as  I  am  holy :"  the  "  substance 
of  things  hoped  for"  (Heb.  xi.  i)  being  that  which 
is  most  in  common  as  between  God  and  His 
people. 

But  though  this  is  delightful  on  the  one  hand,  we 
are  dreadfully  distracted  on  the  other.  We  speak 
of  God  as  though  one  of  His  persons  were  angry,  and 
another  pleased,  and  trying  to  soothe  Him.  We 
speak  of  God's  will,  as  though  it  were  God's  wz7/that 
created  the  heavens,  instead  of  the  inbreathing  of 
His  power.  We  speak  of  God's  w^orks,  as  though  they 
stood  out  like  a  locomotive,  and  He  could  look  at 
them  after  they  were  done.  We  speak  of  God's 
kingship,  as  though  it  were  a  thing  by  itself  apart 
from  His  character.  Anthropomorphism  teaches  us, 
and  then  ruins  us,  if  we  are  not  careful.  It  actually 
governs  us  ;  for  no  man  can  thoroughly  repel  it.  A 
man  who  can  think  of  holiness  as  at  the  head,  and 
God  the  machine-like  power  who  simply  lifts  it  to 
be  supreme  ;  or,  to  express  it  still  better,  the  man 
who  has  his  notion  of  God  as  one  who  obeys 
righteousness,  and  then  enforces  it,  is  a  rare  man 
upon  our  planet,  or,  perhaps,  will  be  a  rare  creature 
even  as  among  angels  in  such  absolute  adoration. 


I  lO  God.  [Book  III. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE    SIMPLICITY   OF    GOD. 

If  we  have  arrived  at  any  idea,  it  is,  that  God  is 
the  simplest  of  all  existences.  ''  Jehovah  is  one,  and 
His  name  is  one."  When  the  infidel  says  that 
Jehovah  is  a  power  that  tends  to  righteousness,  he 
comes  nearer  to  God  than  he  or  the  Church  discovers 
or  intends.  Atheism,  like  all  other  error,  has  a 
large  percentage  of  truth,  or  it  would  vanish  from 
the  earth.  When  the  Christian  says  that,  in  the 
sun,  the  optic  and  the  calorific  and  the  actinic  rays, 
all  in  one  luminary,  or,  coming  nearer,  that  spirit, 
soul  and  body,  all  in  one  creature,  are  like  the  three 
Persons  of  the  Trinity,  all  in  one  essential  Deity,  it 
seems  to  me  like  breaking  a  great  vase.  Before,  it 
was  complete.  Out  of  the  eternity  past  God  came 
up  One  Great  Sun.  The  Incarnation  took  its  place 
like  any  advancing  Providence.  But  to  go  back  to 
the  everlasting,  and  break  God  into  a  trio,  and  then 
compare  that  to  -utterly  earthly  things,  like  the 
radiations  of  the  sun,  or  like  the  faculties  that  can 
be  found  in  man,  is  indeed  anthropomorphism  in 
its  most  shallow  guise. 

If  there  be  a  Trinity,  I  will  believe  it,  but  it  must 
be  taught  out  of  God's  holy  word  ;  and  until  Christ's 
texts  can  be  overthrown  which  refer  everything  to 
God,  even  the  Father  (Jo.  vi.  57,  viii.  16,  19, 
26,  X.  30,  36,  38,  xii.  49,  50,  xiv.  9-1 1),  I  Avill 
hold  that  the  Trinity  is  the  first  rude  assault  upon 


Chap.  X.]  Worship.  1 1 1 

the  one  righteous  Jehovah,  and  the  first  step  by 
Christians  back  to  the  damaging  ideas  of  a  dreary 
Polytheism. 

They  tell  us  in  the  village  where  I  live,  that  God 
is  one  substance,  and  that  in  that  one  substance 
there  is  but  one  consciousness,  but  that  in  that  one 
conscious  substance  there  are  three  persons,  and 
that  in  the  eternal  past  these  persons  kept  company 
with  each  other,  and  relieved  intolerable  loneliness 
by  intercourse  together  before  the  first  creation! 
There  is  nothing  I  will  not  believe  simply  because 
it  is  incomprehensible.  I  do  not  understand  my  book 
falling  to  the  floor.  The  pull  of  the  sun,  when  there 
is  nothing  to  pull  upon,  that  drags  the  earth,  ninety- 
four  millions  of  miles  distant,  Gabriel  may  under- 
stand, but  I  simply  believe.  I  could  believe  nothing 
on  any  other  terms.  But  to  believe  a  thing  like 
that  above,  which  really  has  no  idea;  to  believe  the 
word  Trinity  when  there  is  nothing  under  it  ;  to  be- 
lieve that  one  consciousness  can  sit  in  a  group,  and 
mutually  commune  and  love,  may  God  deliver  me 
from  that !  Such  surd  sores  upon  the  souls  of  the 
intelligent  are  chronic  mischiefs,  the  whole  miseries 
of  which  will  only  be  computed  in  another  being. 

CHAPTER    X. 

WORSHIP. 

Here  again  a  tinge  of  idolatry  cleaves  to  believers. 
The  Pagan  has  got  so  far  that  he  burns  joss-sticks,  and 
whirls  prayer  mills  in  the  face   of  his   Deity.     Com- 


112  God.  [Book  III. 

ing  farther  back,  the  more  corrupted  Christian  tells 
his  beads,  and  endlessly  repeats  his  prayers,  and  eats 
a  wafer,  as  though  it  were  the  flesh  of  his  Creator.  It 
is  interesting  to  see  how  idolatry  clings  to  our  very 
highest  Christianity.  Neither  prayer  nor  song  is  left 
in  its  simplicity.  Not  the  Bible  and  not  the  foolish- 
ness of  preaching  is  left  as  God  meant  it,  as  a  rational 
means  of  grace.  A  touch  of  opus  operatiuii  lasts  even 
with  evangelic  divines.  And,  therefore,  in  closing 
our  section  upon  "  God,"  it  is  ''well  to  say  carefully 
in  respect  to  worship,"  that  the  word  is  derived  from 
the  Anglo-Saxon  weordk,  and  refers  to  ivorth  or 
worthiness;  and  that  the  very  highest  worsJiip  is  a 
sense  of  the  worthiness  of  God,  and  springs  glor- 
iously out  of  our  leading  doctrine. 

He  that  teaches  that  God  is  a  Sovereign,  and  that 
there  is  a  native  born  idea  that  He  is  stark  supreme  ; 
he  that  thinks  of  Him  as  a  King,  and  that  His  chief 
object  is  Himself,  and  His  chief  end  His  personal 
display;  he  that  pictures  Him  in  revenge,  and 
thinks  of  Him  as  doing  as  He  pleases ;  and  then 
gathers  under  this  the  solemnities  of  our  being,  and 
the  hardship  of  everlasting  fire,  surely  degrades 
Heaven's  Majesty. 

Is  not  that  incalculable  wickedness  ? 

He  that  paints  Him  in  His  holiness,  and  makes 
that  His  sovereignty;  he  that  exalts  His  holiness 
into  two  pure  emotions,  benevolence  and  the  love  of 
right ;  he  that  lifts  these  into  the  supreme,  and 
makes  them  the  secret  creator  of  all  created  being; 
he  who  glorifies  these,  and  makes  them,  in  God,  the 


Chap.  X.]  Worship.  1 1 3 

sole  object  of  worship,  and,  in  man,  the  sole  method 
and  the  sole  means  of  worshipping  the  Almighty,  he 
is  the  true  Protestant  believer;  and  he  who  refuses 
all  this,  grieves  his  Deity,  and  is  responsible  for  that 
much  decay  in  the  worship  ot  the  God  who  made 
him. 


BOOK  IV. 

THE   GOD-MAN. 


CHAPTER  I. 

god's  chief  end  with  man 

God's  highest  good  is  righteousness.  God's  high- 
est end,  next  to  being  righteous,  is  not  the  increase 
of  His  own  righteousness,  for  that  is  endlessly  the 
same.  But  God's  highest  end  is  the  promotion  of 
righteousness  in  others.  It  was  with  that  end  He 
created  others,  and,  ever  since  the  universe  began, 
the  whole  was  (up  to  each  particular  moment)  the 
highest  and  the  best. 

To  promote  this  particular  purpose  of  His  being, 
He  employs  each  part  of  the  universe  to  promote 
the  righteousness  of  the  whole. 

He  employs  the  devil  for  that  purpose  (Jer.  ii.  19, 
Rom.  viii.  28). 

Let  it  be  distinctly  understood.  God  is  as  simple 
as  man  in  the  bonds  He  is  imagined  to  give  to  eter- 
nal righteousness.  Righteousness  is  His  simple  law. 
Righteousness  has  but  two  commandments.  Obedi- 
ence  to  those  commandments  is  His  eternal  task. 
The  fruit  of  that  task  is  the  universe  as  it  is.  And, 
as  those  commandments  are,  to  love  the  welfare  of 


Chap.  I.]    God's  Chief  End  with  Man.  115 

others,  and  to  love  the  principle  of  holiness,  either 
God  has  been  defeated  in  his  task,  or  this  universe  is 
the  best  possible. 

When  we  come,  therefore,  to  consider  ^'  God's 
Chief  End  With  Man,"  we  cannot  displace  the 
higher  purpose,  which  is  to  make  man  useful  to  the 
rest  of  the  universe  ;  but  when  we  can  drop  below, 
and  look  at  him  in  himself,  God's  highest  end 
with  man,  cutting  off  all  other  implications,  is  to  lift 
the  individual  man  to  the  highest  holiness  which  his 
circumstances  will  allow.  God's  highest  end  in  the 
instance  of  Satan,  is  to  promote  the  holiness  of  the 
universe  by  the  help  of  Satan.  God's  highest  end 
for  the  individual  Satan  would  be  to  save  him  if  He 
could. 

We  understand,  therefore,  what  has  taken  place. 
God's  omniscience  has  searched  His  administration, 
and  found  no  possibility  for  Satan.  And  this  ex- 
plains the  gospel.  The  like  search  has  been  made 
for  man,  and  turned  out  gloriously  successful. 

Benevolence  for  man  and  benevolence  for  Satan 
are  precisely  similar.  "  Electing  love  "  is  a  myth, 
except  as  singly  expressing  the  results  of  but  two 
affections.  In  fact  for  Satan  the  pity  is  greater,  for 
the  fall  is  more.  Satan  would  have  had  a  Redeemer 
if  what  was  best  possible  would  permit,  and  Chris- 
tians have  a  Redeemer  because  unspeakable  cost 
was  nothing  to  God  if  it  could  be  made  right  to 
pardon. 

God's  highest  motive  with  man,  therefore,  is  to 
rnake  him  a  blessino-  to  the   universe,   and    if  that 


1 1 6  71ie   God-Man.  [Book  IV. 

motive  will  admit,  to  save   his  individual  self    from 
the  effects  of  his  iniquity. 

CHAPTER  II. 

REASONS    FOR    A   GOD-MAN. 

All  that  we  know  about  Adam  is,  that  it  is  natu- 
ral and  just  that  his  children  should  be  cursed  as  he 
was.  It  is  natural,  because  plant-breeding  and  brute- 
breeding  make  like  breed  like  ;  and  it  is  just,  because 
the  Bible  says  so,  and  because  it  is  absolute 
nature,  and  we  cannot  denounce  nature,  be- 
cause it  is  the  work  of  the  unquestionably  just 
Jehovah.  But  why  it  is  natural,  and  why  it  is  just, 
is  above  the  amosphere  of  conscience.  It  is  one  of 
those  doctrines  that  we  have  to  accept  from  the  evi- 
dences we  do  possess  of  the  righteousness  of  the 
Most  High. 

Now,  the  like  may  be  said  about  Christ.  Paul 
chooses  the  best  word  in  his  language.  He  calls 
Christ  the  airioi.  The  verb  means  to  charge  or 
accuse  {alridopiai).  The  noun  derived  from  it  is 
about  as  near  as  we  can  come  to  the  Redeemer. 
Adam  was^tlie  person  judicially  charged  "  if  man 
was  ruined  ;  and  Christ  was  '*  the  person  judicially 
charged "  .if  man  was  saved.  The  passage  is  in 
Hebrews, — "  He  became  the  airiob  of  eternal  sal- 
vation unto  all  them  that  obey  Him  "  (Heb. 
V.  9). 

The  reason  for  a  God-Man,  therefore,  is  like  the 
reason    for  Adam ;  and   I   mean   by   the   reason  for 


Chap.  Il.j      Reaso7is  for  a   God-Man.  117 

Adam,  the  reason  for  implicating  millions  in  the 
downfall  of  one.  We  can  make  puzzles  out  of  the 
Second  Adam  as  deep  as  out  of  the  First.  Never- 
theless there  are  some  features  of  the  Second  that 
are  more  simple  than  that  of  his  forefather. 

1.  Can  God  forgive?  We  must  answer,  No,  with 
all  the  light  upon  the  case  of  Satan. 

2.  Can  God  redeem  ?  We  would  answer,  No  ;  by 
any  plan  or  right  that  we  could  possibly  imagine. 
And  yet  it  would  seem  strange  that  so  great  a  being 
could  not  name  some  terms  on  which  man  could  be 
delivered. 

Strangeness,  how^ever,  does  very  little  for  us,  for 
stranger  things  lie  right  behind  it.  Satan  is  a 
higher  being  than  man.  Satan  is  a  sadder  being ; 
Satan  is  a  suffering  being,  beyond  anything  we  can 
think  of  in  ourselves.  Satan  is  a  sinful  being;  and 
so  sinful  that  he  is  the  topmost  object  of  compas- 
sion to  his  great  Creator.  No  theology  is  wise  that 
does  not  put  its  hand  upon  its  lips.  To  say  that 
Satan  pulled  down  his  own  castle,  is  a  difference  to 
be  sure,  but  Adam  pulled  down  his  own  castle. 
''  There  is  a  path  which  no  fowl  knoweth  ;  "  and 
when  God  "  laid  help  on  one  that  is  mighty,"  He  did 
a  thing  which  is  the  twin  marvel  of  his  government. 
We  do  not  know  how  we  were  lost  in  Adam,  and  we 
do  not  know  how  we  are  saved  in  Christ ;  and  yet 
there  are  simplicities  in  this  latter  which  make  it  to 
the  full  as  clear  as  the  earlier  sacrifice  that  was  made 
to  justice. 

In  the  first  place,  it  was  an  affair  of  justice  ;  ''  that 


1 1 8  The  God-Man.  [Book  IV. 

(God)  might  be  just,  and  (yet)  the  justifier  of  him 
which  beiieveth  in  Jesus"  (Rom.  iii.  26). 

In  the  second  place,  it  was  an  affair  of  punish- 
ment. The  hopelessness  of  Satan  is  an  affair  of  this 
very  thing.  Punishment  is  a  natural  expedient.  It 
is  founded  in  the  constitution  of  the  universe.  God 
was  bound  to  resort  to  it.  He  bound  Himself 
additionally  by  His  truthfulness.  Justice,  in  its 
government  sense,  is  simply  this  needful  obligation. 
When  we  say,  therefore,  that  sacrifice  is  an  affair  of 
justice,  we  mean  that  it  takes  the  place  of  punish- 
ment ;  if  you  choose  to  give  extension  to  that  word, 
you  may  say  that  it  is  a  punishment ;  not  that  the 
Almighty  loves  to  punish  in  that  primordial  sense 
in  which  He  loves  to  bless,  but  that  He  gave  over 
millions  for  the  sin  of  one,  just  as  He  gave  over  one 
for  the  sin  of  millions,  for  a  certain  penal  end,  using 
that  word  punishment  in  a  wide,  unusual  and  very 
specific  sense,  impossible  to  be  brought  into  the 
light  by  any  human  illustration. 

In  the  third  place,  it  is  an  affair  of  substitution. 

In  the  fourth  place,  it  is  an  affair  of  suffering.  So 
far  the  Bible  is  full  of  confirmations.  It  is  not  an 
example  alone,  though  it  is  an  example.  It  is  not  a 
martyrdom  alone,  though  it  is  a  martyrdom  ;  but  it 
is  a  sacrifice.  Keep  only  from  pretending  to  under- 
stand it,  and  we  are  no  more  under  penalty  from 
Adam  than  Christ  is  under  penalty  from  us,  and 
both  are  thoroughly  contemplated  in  the  words  of 
Scripture. 

But  now,  what  is  a   penalty?     We  have   cleared 


Chap.  II.]      Reasons  for  a  God-Man.  tig 

this  in  a  former  part  of  our  theology.  We  shall  not 
have  fitted  it  to  Christ,  till  we  have  shown,  in  the 
fifth  place,  that  his  sacrifice  was  an  affair  of  trial. 

There  have  been,  many  times,  trials  in  the  creation, 
(i)  Far  back,  Satan  was  on  trial,  and  so  was  Gabriel. 
(2)  Far  back  even  of  that,  perhaps,  there  have  been 
unnumbered  w^orlds.  (3)  Tlien  our  world  came  upon 
the  scene,  and  began  by  a  distinct  probation,  and  we 
failed,  as  Satan  did.  (4)  Then  Christ  came,  and  His 
sacrifice  was  not  naked  suffering,  but  probation.  (5) 
Last  of  all  comes  our  trial.  We  are  not  rocked  to 
Heaven  in  a  cradle,  but  put  upon  a  probation;  for 
after  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  we  are  still  to  deter- 
mine, as  Gabriel  did,  and  Satan,  and  as  Christ  our 
Lord  determined,  whether  we  shall  gain  the  prize; 
grace  to  Gabriel,  and  grace  even  to  our  Lord,  and 
grace  unspeakable  to  us,  being  the  necessary  cause 
of  any  succeeding  in  the  trial. 

And  in  respect  to  the  probation  of  our  Master: — 
We  have  seen  that  sin  has  two  retributions.  The 
fiercer  of  them  is  not  often  thought  of.  We  speak 
of  suffering,  and,  when  we  think  of  Christ,  we  think 
of  One  who  took  our  suffering.  But  when  the  first 
Adam  began  our  sins,  suffering,  either  present  or 
eternal,  was  the  least  of  punishments.  '*  The  wages 
of  sin  is  death  "  (Rom.  vi.  23).  And  when  Paul 
lets  that  out  of  his  mouth,  we  are  carried  back  to 
Eden  ;  and  then  we  are  carried  to  Calvary.  We 
note  that  word  in  both  scenes  of  suffering,  and  then 
we  begin  to  reflect.  It  is  outrageous  to  preach  that 
Adam  deserved  Hell  for  eating  the  forbidden  fruit 


1 20  The   God' Man.  [Book  IV. 

if  Hell  means  merely  a  place  of  misery.  If  Adam 
ate  the  forbidden  fruit,  and  then  recovered  himself, 
that  act  might  stand  out  as  a  damned  spot  in  the 
history  of  his  being,  but  a  year  of  agony  for  it  might 
seem  ample  penalty.  We  know  little  about  such 
things;  but,  as  the  absolute  experience,  sinfulness  is 
the  monster  penalty.  And  the  Bible  is  full  of  this. 
The  advertisement  to  Adam  was  not,  Thou  shalt 
suffer,  but,  Thou  shalt  die.  The  grimmest  casualty 
in  life,  viz.,  its  departure,  gives  its  name  to  the 
grimmest  penalty  of  sin,  which  is  not  suffering  by 
any  means.  We  hold  that  if  suffering  were  all,  it 
would  soon  be  over.  But  the  death  of  which  the 
Almighty  speaks,  is  sinfulness.  In  the  day  thou 
eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  become  a  sinner.  Suffering, 
therefore,  is  the  lighter  curse  ;  and  we  keep  out  of 
view  the  heavy  penalty  of  sin,  if  we  forget  that  it  is 
sin  itself,  and  that  sin  increases  sin,  and  makes  it 
heavier  and  more  suffering  throug;h  all  the  ages  of 
its  bondage. 

Now,  can  we  take  a  proper  view  of  the  substitu- 
tion of  our  Lord,  if  we  only  regard  His  suffering? 
We  might,  if  that  be  the  revelation.  But  hovering 
all  about  the  person  of  our  Redeemer  is  that  same 
word  "death"  (Rom.  v.  lo,  vi.  3-5,  9,  10,  16,  2 
Cor.  V.  15).  It  cannot  mean  His  physical  death. 
Suppose  He  had  never  suffered  it.  It  cannot 
mean  His  blood.  Suppose  He  had  been  drowned 
or  hanged  or  tortured  in  bloodless  agony.  It  cannot 
mean  His  cross.  We  make  too  much  of  old  gospel 
words.     It  means  life    more  than    death,    and    His 


Chap.  II.]      Reasons  for  a   God-Man.  121 

previous  sorrows  more  than  the  ecstatic  moment  of 
absolute  dissolution. 

What  does  it  mean  ? 

It  means  His  TRIAL. 

And  now  let  us  speak  of  the  God-Man.  What 
sort  of  a  deliverer  would  we  require  ?  In  the 
dim  lights  that  are  possible  we  have  caught  a 
glimpse  of  four  particulars:  first,  of  justice  ;  second, 
of  punishment  ;  third,  of  substitution  ;  fourth,  of 
suffering :  the  mystery  of  salvation  seems  to  mark 
a  Deliverer  who  answers  to  all  these.  But  now 
comes  in  the  fifth  particular.  How  can  there  be  a 
square  substitution,  if  the  greater  and  sterner  and 
more  comprehensive  mischief  is  entirely  forgotten 
and  unsustained? 

If  the  threatening  to  Adam,  "  Thou  shalt  die," 
and  the  announcement  of  Paul,  '*  We  died,"  and  the 
declaration  as  to  Christ,  that  "  He  died,"  mean  some- 
thing more  than  suffering,  let  us  find  that  out,  and 
let  us  find  it  out  by  putting  together  an  image  of 
the  God-Man,  such  as  Scripture  shall  paint,  and  such 
as  these  five  points  shall  thoroughly  require. 

Imagine  God  in  the  counsels  of  eternity,  to  deter- 
mine to  become  some  day  impersonate  in  a  creature. 
**  No  one  hath  seen  God  at  anytime."  Our  English 
has  it,  ''  No  man,"  but  "  man  "  is  not  in  the  Greek. 
Suppose  it  is  true  that  God  is  the  "  Ring  invisible," 
and  that  Gabriel  has  no  more  seen  Him  than  we 
have;  that  the  atheist  is  right  in  pronouncing  Him 
buried,  and  that  God,  in  His  wisdom,  determined  to 
be  manifest  ;  to  choose  a  Capital  for  His  dominions  : 


152  The   God-Mail.  [Book  IV. 

to  sit  in  ocular  appearance  upon  the  throne  of  His 
power;  and  to  realize  the  language  of  His  word, 
"  The  only  begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of 
the  Father,  He  hath  revealed  Him"  (Jo.  i.  i8). 
This  would  be  the  grander  reason  for  the  God-Man, 
and  would  be  a  good  foundation  to  think  of  before 
all  the  others. 

But  now,  as  to  the  lesser  reasons,  (i)  If  God  was 
to  become  impersonate  in  a  creature,  it  would  be 
like  Him,  according  to  the  revelation  of  His  word, 
to  become  impersonate  in  a  very  low  creature. 
Isaiah  tells  the  Israelites,  ''  An  abomination  is  he 
that  chooseth  you  "  (Is.  xli.  24).  "  Base  things 
of  the  world,  and  things  that  are  despised,  hath 
God  chosen  "  (i  Cor.  i.  28),  for  this  reason,  among 
myriads,  "  That  no  flesh  should  glory  in  his  presence." 
"Thou  hast  set  thy  glory  above  the  Heavens,"  is  the 
exclamation  of  the  Psalmist "  (Ps.  viii.  i) ;  and 
when  we  come  to  discover  the  reason  of  this  ascrip- 
tion, it  is  the  conception  of  Emmanuel :  *'  Out  of 
the  mouth  of  babes  and  sucklings  thou  hast  ordained 
strength."  The  man,  elevated  to  be  a  God,  is  of  an 
infant  race,  nay,  of  a  very  unhappy  race.  God  has 
"  set  His  glory  above  the  Heavens,"  because,  ''when 
I  consider  the  Heavens,  what  is  man  ?"  and  yet  this 
infamous  creation,  with  heart  and  lungs  and  liver 
like  a  brute,  'Thou  hast  made  kindred  to  God  ! 
crowned  him  with  honor !  given  him  dominion ! 
and  set  him  over  the  works  of  Thy  hands  !  It  was 
becoming  to  Christ,  therefore,  that  He  should  be  a 
very  low  creature. 


Chap.  II.]      Reasons  for  a  God-Man,  123 

(2)  But,  carrying  ourselves  all  over  to  what  seems 
entirely  opposite,  it  was  becoming  to  Christ  that  He 
should  be  an  exceedingly  high  creature.  That 
worm  Jacob  must  afterward  ennoble  Himself.  Apart 
from  His  being  the  Most  High,  He  must  stand  in 
the  annals  of  eternity  as  the  sternest  hero.  It  will 
be  comfortable  to  adore  a  man  who  has  outshined 
the  immortals.  And,  therefore,  Christ,  not  simply 
pure  like  Adam,  not  simply  serviceable  like  Gabriel, 
but  beyond  all  other  creatures  the  pattern  even  of 
the  great,  is  the  very  sort  of  low  creature  who,  as 
the  inconceivably  high,  shall  deserve \.\\q:  place  of  the 
Supreme  in  the  creation. 

(3)  It  w^as  becoming  to  Christ  as  God  as  well  as 
man,  to  take  in  His  way  to  empire  the  salvation  of 
a  world.  How  nobly  this  fitted  our  redemption  ! 
God  needed  2i person,  that  is  a  mask  in  the  old  Greek 
sense.  It  was  grand  that  He  should  be  low,  and 
grander  that  He  should  be  high,  that  is,  that  the 
representative  of  Majesty  should  lift  Himself  out  of 
nothing  to  be  the  very  Wonder  of  time.  But  the 
very  theatre  for  doing  this,  and  a  glorious  history 
by  the  way,  is  the  redemption  of  the  world  to  Him- 
self. If  we  could  confine  ourselves  to  this,  the 
reason  for  a  God-Man  could  be  easily  stated. 

(i)  It  was  an  affair  of  justice.  God,  not  incarnate, 
must  curse  the  devils,  and  must  curse  all  of  us. 

(2)  It  was  an  affair  of  substitution,  and  there  God 
would  be  everything.  If  there  is  to  be  a  substitute 
for  millions,  it  must  be  the  Almighty.  There  is  the 
rock  on  which  the  sunshine  of  hope  must  constantly 


1 24  The   God'Maft.  [Book  IV. 

be  beaming.  Is  it  impossible  for  God  to  save  ?  And 
when  the  whole  universe  is  His,  how  can  law  be  of 
such  an  iron  mould  that  He  who  owns  the  damned 
sinner  cannot  substitute  something  for  his  per- 
dition ? 

But  substitute  what  ? 

(3)  A  certain  dim  glimmering  suggests  the  idea  of 
suffering.  And  there,  of  course,  bursts  upon  our 
vision  the  gospel  reason  for  the  God-Man. 

(4)  But  if  there  is  to  be  a  substitution,  and  that 
substitution  is  made  necessary  by  justice,  and  that 
justice  is  of  the  nature  of  punishment,  and  that  pun- 
ishment is  of  two  parts,  how  can  Christ  escape  the 
heavier  part,  and  yet  the  work  of  the  God-Man  be  a 
full  redemption  ? 

It  is  time  thoroughly  to  consider  this. 

The  punishment  of  sin  is  pain  and  sinfulness.  Of 
these  two,  pain  is  very  artificial,  and  sinfulness  the 
heavier  and  more  direct.  This  is  so  signally  the 
history,  that  two  sins  of  Adam  and  of  Eve  sowed 
the  world  with  its  universal  sinfulness. 

Now,  how  can  God  be  a  substitute  for  the  crea- 
ture, unless  He  can  sin  as  well  as  suffer?  Before  we 
close  the  leaf  angrily,  as  we  must  do  at  the  very 
thought  of  such  a  sacrifice,  let  us  look  at  the  whole 
thing  more  narrowly.  What  is  meant  by  Adam's 
death?  (Gen.  ii.  17).  It  means  that  he  was  a  siu' 
ner.  What  is  meant  by  my  death?  (i  Cor.  xv.  22). 
It  means  that  I  am  a  sinner.  What  is  meant  by 
Christ's  death?  (2  Cor.  v.  15).  It  cannot  mean 
that  He  was  a  sinner  ;  for  then  God  would  be  imper- 


Chap.  II.]      Reasons  for  a  God-Man.  125 

senate  with  sin,  and  Christ  would  be  offering  to 
others  the  suffering  that  He  needed  for  personal 
wickedness.  Yet  what  does  it  mean  ?  We  are  dis- 
tinctly told  that  He  died  for  us  (Rom.  v.  6),  and 
neither  death  nor  resurrection  (Phil.  iii.  10,  ii),  as 
spoken  of  in  the  person  of  Christ,  can  at  all  be 
exhausted  by  physical  significancies. 

We  abhor  theological  schemes  that  are  built  of 
speculation,  and  will  push  our  inquiry  till  we  land  in 
the  teaching  of  the  Bible.  But  to  make  sure  of 
doing  so,  let  us  imagine  certain  things.  Suppose 
that  I  were  the  Redeemer.  Suppose  God  (to  die  as 
well  as  suffer)  met  me  at  my  maturer  age,  and 
became  God  incarnate  in  a  dead  sinner.  All  stand 
back  aghast.  None  of  the  reasons  for  a  God-Man 
would  at  all  be  answered.  Not  justice.  It  would 
be  crushed.  Not  punishment.  I  would  need  it 
myself.  Not  substitution.  I  would  have  none  to 
offer.  I  must  put  quite  out  of  account  that  Christ 
actually  sinned  to  be  a  substitute  for  sinners. 

Suppose  the  incarnation  were  in  Cain.  Eve 
thought  it  would  be."^  Or,  to  bring  it  nearer  to  the 
facts,  suppose  it  were  a  more  recent  child,  four 
thousand  years  after,  a  child  of  Joseph  and  Mary, 
and  that  God  waited,  like  the  Devil  in  the  vision,  to 
seize  upon  the  child  on  the  moment  that  it  was 
born.       There    again    vicarious  '*  death  "   might  be 

*  "  I  have  gotten  a  man,  Jehovah,"  seems  to  imply  that  she 
thought  Cain  the  promised  Victor.  When  she  called  "Abel"  by 
that  name  {Hebhel)  Vanity,  it  seems  to  imply  discoveiies  in  Cain 
{ka}tah,  possession),  that  shocked  and  disappointed  her. 


126  The  God-Man.  [Book  IV. 

imagined,  but  alas !  as  in  the  other  instance,  too 
much  death.  That  child  would  have  "  seen  corrup- 
tion," and  we  can  know,  on  easy  principles,  that  our 
substitute  must  be  "  holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  sepa- 
rated"^ from  sinners,"  as  well  as  made  higher  than 
the  heavens. 

One  more  imagination  will  land  us  direct  in  the 
realities  of  Scripture.  Suppose  He  ante-dated  birth, 
so  that  it  could  never  be  said  of  Christ,  ''  Thou  wast 
altogether  born  in  sin."  Bat  suppose  that  any- 
thing otherwise  than  that  were  simply  a  matter  of 
date,  and  simply  a  seizure  of  sure  priority.  Suppose 
the  Christ  were  from  a  sinful  womb;  suppose  that 
from  nature,  otherwise  than  as  acted  out,  He  was 
as  good  as  dead,  "  a  dead  man  according  to  the 
flesh"  (i  Pet.  iii.  i8) ;  suppose  that  He  had  ''  infirm- 
ities," Heb.  iv.  15,  V.  2  (and  we  have  a  right  to 
leave  upon  Scripture  the  onus  of  the  necessary 
explanation) ;  suppose  that  He  never  sinned,  but 
that  by  nature  He  would  have  sinned,  unless  born 
from  the  beginning  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (Lu.  i. 
35)  ;  suppose  that  to  be  so  born  He  was  of  a  virgin  ; 
suppose  that  to  be  of  a  virgin,  God  begot  Him  into 
being  ;  suppose  that,  to  be  a  *'holy  thing,"  the  Most 
High  overshadowed  Him  ;  but,  that  this  might  be  a 
''death  "  and  "  dying,"  and  that  the  life  might  be  a 
"  cursed  "  thing,  and  the  whole  a  horrible  probation, 
suppose  that  here  was  not  a  ''  holy  thing"  as  it  is 
now  in  the  everlasting  kingdom,  nor  a  rapturous 
sinlessness  as  it  is  with  us   the  moment  we  rise   on 


Chap.  III.]  Nature  of  the  Man.  127 

high,  but  a  perfectness  which  was  an  awful  misery 
to  keep,  and  a  sinlessness  which  it  was  ''  death  "  to 
fight  for. 

This  '*  death "  of  a  Saviour  is  not  so  hard  to 
understand.  Take  any  struggling  saint.  In  minia- 
ture he  is  a  crucified  one  (Rom.  vi.  6,  Gal.  ii.  20, 
V.  24).  He  is  a  sinner,  and  that  spoils  the  resem- 
blance. But  suppose  he  were  not  so.  Suppose  he 
had  the  Spirit  ''  not  in  part  "  (Jo.  iii.  34).  We  can 
conceive  of  the  struggle  still :  but  suppose  the  per- 
fect Spirit  that  I  shall  have  in  heaven,  came  to  me 
on  earth,  but  not  in  that  easy  method  that  would 
make  it  rapture  to  obey,  but  simply  to  stir  me  to  a 
fight,  to  make  that  fight  perfect,  but,  for  the  very 
end  that  it  might  be  perfect,  to  make  it  awfully 
fierce  and  fiercely  dangerous  on  the  question  of 
victory. 

This  now  is  the  God-Man. 

Adam  had  an  easy  trial  for  all  our  race,  and  per- 
ished miserably.  Christ  had  an  awful  trial,  and  won, 
and  all  the  parts  we  have  mentioned  are  now  com- 
plete in  this  perfect  Redeemer. 

CHAPTER  III. 

NATURE   OF  THE   MAN. 

Christ,  therefore,  was  not  a  man  with  the  reserve 
of  not  being  implicated  in  Adam.  He  was  a  man 
like  you  or  me.  He  would  have  been  more  like 
each  of  us  were  it  not  necessary  that  He  should  be 
kept  from  sinning.     That    He  might  be  kept  from 


128  The  God-Man,  [Book  IV. 

sinning  He  was  born  of  a  virgin.  That  He  might 
be  born  of  a  virgin  He  was  begotten  of  the 
Ahnighty.  That  He  might  be  begotten  for  trial 
He  was  begotten  in  a  sinful  womb.  That  left  Him 
''infirm"  (Heb.  v.  2).  That  made  Him  ''a  dead 
man  according  to  the  flesh"  (i  Pet.  iii.  18).  That 
ensured  Him  to  be  a  sinner,  unless  quickened  by  the 
Spirit  (Eph.  ii.  5).  That  filled  Him  with  tempta- 
tion ;  made  it  an  agony  for  Him  to  live  ;  gave  a  sig- 
nificance to  it  that  he  "died;"  and  quite  smothered 
all  physical  anguish  in  the  hotter  ordeal  of  unparal- 
leled probation. 

Christ  then  was  of  Adam.  He  had  a  body  and 
soul.  He  was  ignorant  (Mar.  xiii.  32).  In  the 
three  days  of  the  sepulchre  as  a  man  He  had  ceased 
from  living.  In  the  eternity  to  come  He  will  be 
finite,  growing  eternally.  He  was  cursed.  He 
inherited  from  the  first  sinful  pair.  He  received  His 
inheritance  in  weakness  (Heb.  iv.  15),  but  not  in 
sinfulness.  He  would*  have  been  a  sinner  but  for 
grace.  The  grace  was  of  His  own  coinage,  but  of 
the  whole  God-Man.  It  was  applied  to  Him  in  His 
conception.  Nevertheless  He  was  stinted  of  it — 
sometimes  more  than  others  (Matt.  iv.  i).  He  was 
played  upon  like  a  great  harpsichord.  The  Spirit 
announced  to  Him  His  own  departures  (Matt.  xxvi. 
39),  and  in  the  agony  of  the  thought,  His  faith 
almost  departed.  *'  If  it  be  possible,"  He  cried,  let 
me  be  spared  in  this.  And  like  an  ivy  toward  an 
oak  He  leaned  toward  His  disciples  (Matt,  xxvi : 
38-40)  only -to  fulfil  the  oracle  that  there  should   be 


Chap.  IV.J  Nature  of  the   God.  129 

none  to  help  ;  and,  in  the  agony  of  His  sinlessness 
(for  one  sin  would  have  ruined  everything)  the 
spirit  only  was  willing,  the  flesh  was  weak ;  and  in 
the  fervid  language  of  Isaiah,  He  had  to  tread  the 
wine-press  alone. 

Now  we  can  take  up  all  the  particulars,  (i)  There 
was  justice,  and  He  satisfied  it.  (2)  There  was  pun- 
ishment, and  He  bore  it.  (3)  There  was  substitu- 
tion, and  He  furnished  it.  (4)  There  was  suffering, 
and  He  endured  it.  (5)  And  there  was  trial,  and 
He  went  regularly  to  work,  like  Satan  and  like 
Adam,  and  like  Gabriel,  and  like  us  at  the  narrow 
gate,  only,  with  the  least  ease  of  all,  to  try  after  a 
victory. 

The  God-Man,  therefore,  could  parcel  out  all  these 
prerequisites  as  to  penalty  that  were  to  be  borne  for 
our  deliverance. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

NATURE   OF   THE   GOD. 

The  Socinian  says,  that  the  God  in  the  God-Man 
was  simply  a  Divineness,  like  the  Divinity  in  any 
heroic  soul  who  acts  grandly  on  the  scale  of  life. 
This  will  not  answer:  for  justice  w^ould  laugh  at  the 
propitiation  of  any  mortal.  Moreover  this  is  not 
the  account  of  Scripture  (Heb.  i.  8-12,  Jo.  viii.  58, 
Acts  XX.  28). 

The  Arian  says,  that  the  God  in  the  God-Man  was 
a  high  creature.  But  this  will  not  answer  (Lu.  i. 
35,  I  Tim.  ii.  5,  Heb.  i.   10),  and  it  is  strange  that 


1 30  The  God-Man,  [Book  IV. 

the  noblest  intellects  on  earth  have  wandered  this 
way  in  the  understanding  of  the  gospel  (Newton, 
Milton,  Locke).  We  are  yet  to  show  where  Arian- 
ism  comes  from. 

The  Sabellian  says,  that  the  Three  Persons  are 
three  Modalities.  But  this  will  not  answer,  for  bet- 
ter make  a  Trinity  in  full  than  put  a  Modality  for  the 
Godhead  of  my  Master. 

The  Trinitarian,  therefore,  says  that  God  is  in 
Three  Persons.  It  is  the  Fable  of  the  ages.  It  is 
the  most  dignified  deceit  that  the  gospel  has  ever 
known.  It  m.akes  the  Spirit  God,  and  that  is  a 
blessing.  It  makes  the  Son  God,  and  that  is  vital. 
It  makes  the  Father  God,  and  these  correct  ascrip- 
tions mollify  the  error.  And  the  Church  has  grown 
with  much  comfort  and  with  many  pieties  of  effort 
under  these  belittling  polytheisms.  But  is  it  not 
time  to  drift  free  ?  Martyrdom  ended,  because  it 
destroyed  life.  Jacobitism  ended,  because  it  cut  off 
the  heads  of  subjects.  And  so  of  the  Mystic  Pres- 
ence and  Baptismal  Birth  and  Pontifical  Unity  and 
Priestly  Absolution  ;  they  have  partially  vanished 
because  they  meddled  with  what  is  vital.  But  the 
Trinity  is  a  stolid  thing ;  and,  though  it  bereaves  us 
of  all  chance  either  among  Jews  or  Moslems,  and 
though  it  has  most  certainly  had  a  track  of  engen- 
dered heresies,  yet  we  have  fought  a  good  fight,  and 
reached  a  high  degree,  even  with  this  wooden  evil. 

It  is  not  of  the  least  use  to  the  gospel. 

It  is  the  idea  that  it  is  of  use  to  the  gospel  that 
has  preserved  it. 


Chap.  TV.]         Natttre  of  the  God.  131 

Dorner  says  that  the  Trinity  has  grown  upon  the 
necessities  of  Christology. 

But  now  we  have  arrived  at  the  chapter  w4iere  we 
are  to  show  that  the  gospel  does  not  need  it,  if  that 
is  to  be  the  plea. 

Where  does  the  gospel  need  it  ? 

The  gospel  needs  a  God  and  a  Man  united  in  one 
person.  It  needs  a  God  to  suffer  and  die  and  be  a 
substitute,  and  after  He  has  been  a  substitute,  to 
apply  by  Almighty  powxr  the  advantage  gained,  to 
dead  men's  hearts.  It  needs  a  Man,  one  with  this 
God,  to  do  the  suffering  part  and  the  dying  part  and 
the  human  part  in  this  great  transaction.  What 
does  it  need  more?  If  we  make  the  God-part  a  sec- 
ond person,  we  weaken  the  whole  design.  How 
spirited  the  words  of  Christ  when  He  puts  the  whole 
thing  directly!  "  I  live  by  the  Father."  If  He  lived 
by  Himself  in  "hypostatic  difference,"  how  well  to 
say  so  !  He  mentions  a  Comforter  :  but  hardly  has 
He  brought  Him  forth  before  He  steps  down  upon 
Him.  "/will  not  leave  you  orphans.  /  w^ill  come 
to  you  "  (Jo.  xiv.  18).  He  mentions  Him  again, 
and  this  time  confuses  Him  with  the  Father.  "  All 
that  the  Father  hath  is  mine  :  therefore  I  said  He 
shall  take  of  mine  and  show  it  unto  you  "  (Jo.  xvi. 
15).  There  is  not  the  least  effort  to  keep  them 
apart  as  separate  hypostases.  "He  that  hath  seen 
me  hath  seen  the  Father"  (Jo.  xiv.  9).  "  Novv^ 
the  Lord  is  that  Spirit"  (2  Cor.  iii.  17).  "I  and 
my  Father  are  one  "  (Jo.  x.  30).  And  at  last, 
jumbling  the  names  all  together,  we  have  a  complete 


1 3  2  The  God'Man.  [Book  IV. 

surrender  of  the  Paraclete  to  Christ.  We  read  it  in 
an  epistle.  ''  If  any  man  sin,  we  have  a  comforter 
with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous"  (i  Jo. 
ii.  i).  The  Almighty,  therefore,  and  the  Comforter, 
and  the  Father,  and  the  God-head  of  Christ  are  the 
one  thing,  the  God-part  of  Emmanuel,  not  simply  one 
in  essence,  but  one  Person  ;  and  all  disturbance  of 
this  unity  of  thought  embroils  rather  than  advances 
a  simple  salvation. 

Men  smile  as  we  write  this.  We  are  in  awful  com- 
pany. Spot  after  spot  of  our  planet  has  reared  an 
orthodox  Church,  and,  like  some  phylloxeras  of  the 
plant-world  one  single  mischief  has  beset  each  one 
of  them.  How  ridiculous  it  seems  to  speak  of  the 
Trinity  as  corrupting  faith  !  Geneva  rose  and 
stamped  England,  and  stamped  the  Continent,  and 
stamped  this  continent,  and  stamped  Scotland  with 
the  purest  thought,  and  the  date  of  its  betrayal  was 
precisely  the  date  of  its  departure  from  the  Trinity. 
Holland  followed  suit  with  the  like  decay.  And  so 
of  London,  and  so  of  Boston,  and  so  of  the  North  of 
Ireland.  They  gave  over  whole  churches  of  Christ 
to  a  less  earnest  gospel :  such  is  the  history  when 
they  were  taught  to  waver  about  the  Trinity  of  the 
Most  High.  This  at  least  is  the  impression  seated 
upon  our  minds.  And  in  each  instance  of  the  sort 
controversies  have  raged.  Men  adore  a  thing  when 
they  have  fought  for  it.  The  Genevese  breaking- 
away  leaves  a  chosen  remnant  who  tremble  with  feel- 
ing when  they  think  of  the  deniersof  the  Trinity.  It 
is  so  in  London.     Men  in  Ulster  and  at  the  Hague, 


Chap.  IV.]  Nature  of  the  God.  133 

though  careless  in  other  things,  yet,  like  Andover, 
spring  to  their  guns  the  moment  the  Trinity  is  laid 
bare.     This  makes  our  part  a  hard  one. 

But  may  it  not  be  true  that  the  Trinity  has  been 
\.\\^ point  d'appuioi  those  very  errors  that  have  come 
in  in  each  of  these  places  ?  How  interesting  if  the 
oversetting  of  the  Trinity  should  now  be  the  act  by 
which  dangerous  freethinkings  are  deprived  of  cover  ! 

For  see  what  the  progress  has  been  in  each  of  these 
seats.  Men  have  denied  depravity.  They  have  em- 
braced Arminian  extremes.  They  have  advanced 
to  Pelagian  beliefs.  They  have  rid  themselves  of  the 
yiecessity  of  redemption.  And  having  arrived  so  far, 
they  have  denied  a  necessity  for  Christ,  and  lost  by 
that  route  a  care  for  the  Trinity. 

This  has  been  the  unfailing  order. 

And  mark  now  what  we  mean  by  a  cover. 

Abandoned  by  all  these  more  important  faiths, 
they  have  nevertheless  found  the  last  and  least  im- 
portant of  them  all  to  be  the  most  easy  to  defeat. 
In  bolder  language,  they  have  found  the  weak  spot 
among  the  orthodox  ;  and  as  the  Trinity  is  not  really 
true,  they  have  found  that  out,  and  found  this  by 
far  the  thriftiest  place  to  pursue  the  argument.  It 
was  so  in  old  Arian  times.  Had  there  been  no 
Trinity  at  all,  it  would  have  been  easier  to  reform. 
But  Plato  created  for  Philo,  and  Philo  for  Cerinthus, 
and  Cerinthus  for  the  enemies  at  Nice  a  miserable 
Threeness,  which,  if  it  had  been  thrust  utterly  away, 
would  have  saved  the  centuries  from  half  their 
polemics. 


1 34  The  God- Man.  [Book  IV. 

Will  it  not  be  possible  to  do  this  in  the  more 
reasonable  future? 

For  see  !     What  do  we  need  of  a  Trinity  ? 
We  need  a  Man. 

"  Till  God  in  human  flesh  I  see, 
My  thoughts  no  comfort  find." 

Let  that  Man  be  the  Son  of  God,  and  it  brings  into 
shape  a  text  so  frightfully  quibbled  over  (see  the 
commentaries),  ''  Thou  art  my  Son  ;  this  day  have  I 
begotten  Thee." 

We  need  a  God,  and  we  beg  to  be  excused  from 
appearing  among  those  opposers  of  the  Trinity  who 
corrupted  Geneva,  for  we  go  to  the  opposite  extreme. 
Instead  of  an  anti-Trinity  that  denies  the  Godhead, 
we  advocate  one  that  clears  it  and  lifts  it  up.  We 
pine  after  a  Nice  which  shall  say  that  the  Second 
Person  is  God,  but  that  he  is  no  Second  Person,  that 
the  One  Personal  Jehovah  is  incarnate  in  Christ,  and  is 
the  Holy  Ghost.  This  is  our  belief,  and  it  ought  not 
to  bring  us  into  the  category  of  previous  anti-Trinity. 

Such  is  our  doctrine,  and  see  now  how  a  pure 
gospel  comes  out  : — 

We  need  a  Man,  and  see  therefore  how  the  only 
begotten  of  the  Father  arrived  in  the  City  of  Beth- 
lehem, and  how,  in  no  higher  book  than  Cruden,the 
big  S  appears  upon  the  Son  only  in  that  part  of  reve- 
lation that  surrounds  the  Manger.  All  that  God 
could  not  do,  the  Man  did.  When  it  comes  to 
suffer ;  when  it  must  be  said,  ''  I  thirst "  ;  when  the 
Deliverer  must  pray  ;  when  the  Substitute  must  die, 


Chap.  IV.]         'Nature  of  the  God.  135 

or,  as  we  have  explained  it,  must  be  tried  in  a  hor- 
rible gauntlet  with  the  Adversary,  what  God  could 
not  do,  Man  must  do  ;  and  it  would  not  help  the 
sufferer  in  the  least  to  claim  Godhead  from  the  Son, 
rather  than  to  be  Himself  the  Son,  and  to  claim  God- 
head from  the  simplest  Unity. 

If  this  be  not  so,  tell  us  why  not. 

And  then,  over  all,  we  need  a  God,  and  the  more 
a  God,  we  would  carefully  teach,  the  better.  What 
single  good  is  there  in  dividing  the  Sovereign  ?  As 
every  finite  load  must  be  borne  by  the  Man,  so  the 
weight  of  the  dignity  of  the  sacrifice  must  be  of  the 
One  Almighty. 

Not  only  so,  but  the  idea  helps.  We  get  it  into 
our  head,  if  we  adore  a  Trinity,  that  the  Son  was  in 
one  mood  and  the  Father  in  another  when  they 
achieved  the  Sacrifice.  The  worst  errors  of  the 
Atonement  beset  this  duality.  It  is  impossible  to 
clear  our  speech  of  the  angry  God,  and  a  yearning 
and  compassionate  Redeemer.  How  monstrous ! 
When  with  the  One  Jehovah  we  have  a  God  bearing 
our  sins  in  His  own  body  on  the  tree,  reconciling  the 
world  to  Himself,  so  loving  the  world  as  to  give  His 
only  begotten  Son,  the  Son  being  the  Man  God-be- 
gotten, and  the  Father  being  the  God  begotten  into 
the  Man,  and  the  two  together  being  the  God-Man, 
furnishing  in  their  blended  being,  not  that  thing 
which  a  First  Person  fiercely  asked,  and  a  Second 
Person  did  not  need,  but  that  satisfaction  to  justice 
which  the  whole  Godhead  needed,  and  which  was 
arranged  and  ratified  by  the  One  Almighty. 


136  The  God-Mail.    ■  [Bookiv. 

It  has  been  a  foolish  cavil  that  this  gives  two 
persons  in  Christ.  What  matter?  There  are  two 
beings  in  Christ.  That  seems  as  strong  as  '' persons^ 
It  would  be  a  right  thing  to  say  that  there  are  two 
persons  in  Christ  if  we  meant  hy person,  which  is 
not  a  Bible  word,  two  conscious  intelligences. 
This  indeed  might  be  a  very  tolerable  definition. 
There  are  two  such  in  Christ.  He  is  a  finite  being  and 
an  infinite  being  ;  omniscient  and  ignorant ;  self-exist- 
ent and  dependent ;  indeed,  much  more  discrepant  in 
His  two  existences  than,  in  our  spoiled  notions  about 
a  Trinity,  we  usually  imagine ;  and  though  we  are 
fond  of  calling  Him  One  Person,  because  (i)  He  is  one 
in  court  and  (2)  one  as  King  and  (3)  one  in  spiritual 
purpose,  yet,  as  this  difficulty  is  stirred,  it  is 
beautiful  to  think  how,  under  that  other  definition 
of  a  person,  though  not  the  right  one.  He  thoroughly 
provides  all  the  mutualities  of  an  efficient  gospel. 
If  He  prays,  it  is  not  God  who  could  pray,  even 
if  He  were  a  Second  Person.  If  He  intercedes,  it 
is  not  God  who  could  occupy  middle  ground,  but 
the  Man  with  God  incarnate.  If  He  suffers  ;  if  He 
is  tried ;  if  He  wrestles  with  temptation  ;  if  He 
shrinks  from  His  own  shrinking,  and  fortifies  His 
will  by  the  cry,  *' Let  Thy  will  be  done";  all  these 
could  only  be  enacted  by  a  man  ;  and  if  the  Third 
Person  could  do  nothing  other  than  God,  why 
make  a  Third  Person,  and  why  make  a  Second  on 
any  plea  like  Dorner's  that  it  helps  Christology? 

Jesus  Christ,  in  all  that  He  says,  speaks  as  a-  God 
(Jo.  viii.  58,  xiv.  9),  or  as  a  Man   (i    Cor.   xv.  28, 


Chap.  V.]  Redemption.  137 

Jo.  xiv.  28),  and  there  is  no  reason  why,  as  separate 
consciousnesses,  these  two  should  not  deal  as  well 
as  speak  with  each  other  in  the  work  of  our  salva- 
tion. 

CHAPTER  V. 

REDEMPTION. 

We  are  in  danger  of  saying  too  much  rather  than 
too  little  on  the  subject  of  Redemption.  The  words 
of  the  Bible  can  rarely  be  taken  literally.  When 
they  apply  to  God  they  can  never  be  taken  literall}', 
for  words  coined  for  earth,  never  can  match  the 
things  of  the  Almighty. 

When  God  is  called  our  Father,  the  analogy  is 
distant ;  though  so  close  in  respect  to  absolute  de- 
rivation, that  we  are  told  that  from  Him  "  all  fa- 
therhoods in  heaven  and  on  earth  are  named  " 
(Eph.  iii.  15).  Still  He  is  not  our  Father  in  any  even 
proximate  human  sense. 

These  are  the  healthiest  reminders  in  beginning  a 
chapter  on  Redemption. 

When  man  redeems,  he  does  so  so  squarely,  that 
to  use  the  word  for  anything  in  the  gospel  should 
put  us  on  our  guard  against  doing  so  in  an  absolute 
sense.  To  go  back  to  the  beginning — when  Satan 
fell,  the  sin  that  he  committed  was  punished  by 
eternal  sinfulness.  Why  he  was  not  redeemed  we 
cannot  tell.  When  Adam  sinned,  the  sinfulness  to 
which  he  was  given  up,  was  transmitted  to  his  off- 
spring, and   redemption,  to  be    taken    in   its  most 


138  The  God-Man.  [Book  I \^. 

simple  sense,  would  have  bought  off  the  whole 
world  into  immediate  holiness.  But  now,  see  how 
distant  the  fact  is  from  any  such  meaning  of  redemp- 
tion. When  I  was  born,  my  parents,  though  re- 
deemed, were  sinful,  and  I  came  into  the  world  lost, 
just  as  though  no  ransom  had  ever  been  paid.  Im- 
agine me  to  be  converted.  lam  not  converted  from 
suffering,  and  only  partially  from  sinning.  My 
neighbor  is  not  converted  at  all.  Time  passes,  and 
I  reach  heaven.  There  my  redemption  becomes 
complete.  And  as  a  result  of  these  three  different 
epochs  of  the  work,  redemption  has  really  three  sig- 
nificances, the  work  that  was  done  upon  the  cross 
(i  Pet.  i.'  18),  the  work  that  was  done  when  I  was 
converted  (Rev.  xiv.  4),  and  the  work  that  became 
complete  on  the  day  called  for  that  great  reason 
"  the  day  of  redemption  "  (Eph.  iv.  30). 

Now  the  very  straggling  nature  of  this  experience 
might  have  cured  us  of  the  danger  of  being  misled 
by  the  word  ;  but,  strange  to  say,  it  has  been  differ- 
ent, and  two  disagreeable  consequences  remain  of 
making  a  human  word  rule  too  literally  the  conduct 
of  the  Almighty. 

(i)  When  Christ  redeemed.  He  redeemed,  in  the 
most  general  sense,  all  mankind.  This  is  what  the 
Bible  asserts  ;  and  it  asserts  it  in  the  very  face  of 
the  discrepance.  It  says,  "Who  is  the  Saviour  of  all 
men,  especially  of  them  that  believe  "  (i  Tim.  iv. 
10).  The  very  idea  of  redemption  has  led  men  to 
refuse  any  such  sense,  and  begotten  those  odious 
doc^mas  in   the  Church,  that   Christ  redeemed   only 


Chap,  v.]  Redemption,  139 

His  people,  and  that  there  was  really  a  limited 
atonement,  and  that  millions  are  preached  to  who 
cannot  possibly  be  saved,  because  ransom  is  a  posi- 
tive thing,  and  Christ  definitely  ransomed  only  His 
people.  Men  seem  insensible  of  the  fact  that  they 
desperately  outrage  by  such  speech  the  more  intel- 
ligent of  the  wicked. 

And  it  seems  such  wanton  outrage.  Hosts  of 
words  modify  themselves  by  changes  of  circum- 
stance. Propitiation  does  not  propitiate  in  any 
sense  of  softening  the  Deity.  Expiation  does  not 
expiate.  The  guilty  soul  remains  as  guilty,  in  all 
but  a  narrow  sense,  after  the  sacrifice.  Pardon  does 
not  pardon,  for  the  pardoned  soul  sins  and  suffers. 
So  redemption  simply  shadows  the  meaning,  and 
the  only  way  to  arrive  at  it  is  to  consult  the  facts. 
The  exact  condition  of  the  facts  is  what  the  Bible 
means  by  the  figure  of  redemption. 

(2)  And  when  we  consult  the  facts,  another  er- 
rancy must  come  in,  which  the  strict  word  redemp- 
tion might  seem  to  deny.  Not  only  may  a  man  be 
redeemed  and  yet  not  saved,  and  redeemed  in  a  very 
substantial  sense,  making  his  own  sinfulness  now  the 
only  thing  that  can  defeat  his  deliverance ;  not  only 
may  a  man  be  redeemed  and  yet  born  wicked  ;  not 
only  may  a  man  be  converted,  and  yet  be  so  little 
redeemed  that  he  both  sins  and  suffers,  but  a  man 
may  be  converted  and  then  fall  and  perish,  and  it  is 
only  the  snare  of  speech  that  has  fixed  by  these 
human  vocables  a  different  idea. 

Redeem   is  a   criorious  word  when  we   remember 


140  The   God-Man.  [Book  IV. 

how  much  we  are  redeemed  from,  and  how  much 
the  angels  have  endured  for  the  lack  of  just  our  ran- 
som. But  we  are  never  safe  in  running  wild  with  the 
word.  We  must  stop  to  remember  that  it  is  just  our 
ransom.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  it  bought  for  us 
another  probation.  It  must  do  more  or  nothing. 
And  yet  it  is  equally  false  that  it  redeemed  any 
body  in  the  sense  of  no  probation  ;  in  the  sense  of 
no  delay  ;  in  the  sense  of  no  imperfectness,  or,  to 
crown  the  list,  in  the  sense  of  not  falling  from  grace, 
if  the  grace,  so  amply  paid  for,  is  resisted  and 
grieved  by  returning  to  evil. 

The  redemption,  thus  sketched,  is  the  whole  foren- 
sic work  of  our  Redeemer.  Since  Luther  this  has 
been  dangerously  overset.  If  a  man  is  redeemed, 
and  enters  upon  his  probation,  what  follows  ?  Un- 
doubtedly pardon.  Now  what  does  he  need  over 
and  above  pardon  ?  Luther  says  he  needs  justifica. 
tion,  and  in  a  most  amazing  degree  this  has  been 
caught  up  by  religious  people.  It  has  been  echoed 
from  pulpits  since,  as  "  the  doctrine  of  a  standing 
or  falling  Church."  Yet  what  is  pardon  ?  It  is  a 
relieving  of  the  curse.  And  what  is  the  curse?  It 
is  pain  and  sinfulness.  And  can  a  man  be  said  to 
be  pardoned  whose  sinfulness  is  not  reduced  ?  Un- 
doubtedly not.  Then  what  is  the  difference  between 
reducing  my  sinfulness  and  making  me  righteous  ? 
None,  if  I  refer  to  that  sort  of  righteousness,  viz. : 
my  diminished  sinfulness,  to  which  the  word  is  ap- 
plied in  this  world. 

Will  any  one,  therefore,  please  to  indicate  where 


Chap,  v.]  Redemption,  141 

is  the  room  for  justification,  I  mean  in  the  Protes- 
tant sense?  I  am  redeemed.  Under  the  influences 
of  grace,  I  repent.  My  redemption  becomes  precious 
through  success  in  my  probation.  As  its  result  I  am 
pardoned.  As  a  result  I  am  made  holy;  and  of 
course  we  are  to  understand,  I  am  made  less  sinful,  for 
that  is  all  the  attainment  of  righteousness  that  we  dis- 
cover in  this  world.  Now  how  dishonoring  to 
redemption  to  add  to  it  justification !  Where  can  it 
come  in  ?  Pardon  continued  to  the  last,  and  sanc- 
tification  made  complete  in  heaven,  what  can  I 
have  more  ?  And  why  disturb  the  fulness  of  re- 
demption by  this  vagary  of  these  last  centuries  of 
time? 

It  might  be  gravely  asked,  how  Christ  could  spare 
His  righteousness  from  His  own  standing  in  the 
court.  He  could  spare  His  sufferings,  because,  by  the 
very  force  of  His  righteousness.  He  did  not  deserve 
them.  But,  that  apart,  we  have  but  one  need  in 
law.  Grant  that  we  be  forgiven,  and  righteousness 
must  follow.  There  is  no  cause  for  leaving  us  in 
sin  if  rid  of  guiltiness.  Pay  that  off,  and  sanctifi- 
cation  follows.  And,  with  pardon  for  the  past,  and 
purity  for  the  future,  all  forensic  need  is  met,  and 
we  weaken  redemption  when  we  add  to  it  another 
transfer. 


14.2  The  God-Man,  [Book  IV. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

JUSTIFICATI  ON. 

Justification,  in  the  language  of  Luther,  is  the 
making  over  to  us  of  the  obedience  of  Christ,  to 
serve  as  merit  as  though  it  were  our  own,  and  to  be 
our  quotable  righteousness  both  in  judgment  and 
through  eternity.  We  pronounce  the  doctrine  an 
arrant  superstition. 

And  to  guard  against  too  swift  a  censure  for  so 
rough  a  speech,  we  win  time  for  its  defence  by  the 
shelter  of  a  most  startling  statement.  No  mortal 
ever  conceived  of  sucJi  a  doctrine  till  the  time  of 
Lnther.  Has  the  Church  sufificiently  thought  of 
that  ?  Her  shelves  groan  with  the  testimony  of  the 
best  of  men.  Never  in  a  single  instance  do  they 
breathe  of  righteousness  except  as  one  imparted 
inwardly  to  ourselves  !  Match  such  a  contrariety  as 
to  any  great  truth  of  modern  symbols.  Abraham, 
we  admit,  did  not  understand  Christ  ;  and  we  might 
starve  for  any  Christ  in  after  Rabbinic  testimonies. 
But  that  is  not  a  parallel.  "  The  doctrine  of  a 
standing  or  falling  Church "  not  known  in  the 
church,  and  that  for  a  millennium  and  a  half,  is  a 
thing  at  least  to  pause  at.  A  millennium  and  a  half 
did  not  need  it.  Acute  and  earnest  to  the  last, 
they  did  without  it.  Leaning  on  something  else, 
they  had  no  room  for  it.  And,  affectionately  pious, 
the  first  Fathers  of  the  church,  like  the  great  leaders 
afterward,  filled  up  all  the  ground  without  so  much 


Chap.  VI.]  Justification.  143 

as  dreaming  of  such  a  ^bstitution.  Observe  what 
they  say. — Chemnitz  says  for  them  (though  a  dis- 
ciple of  Melancthon),  "  We  enter  into  no  controversy 
with  the  Fathers,  though,  for  the  most  part,  they 
take  justification  for  that  renovation  by  which  works 
of  righteousness  are  wrought  in  us  by  the  Spirit" 
(Exam.  Cone.  Trident.,  pars  i.,  p.  6^6).  Accord- 
ingly Ambrose, — ''  The  Spirit  of  God  is  given  for 
justification,  that  he  may  justify  by  his  help  " 
(Ambrose,  vol.  ii.,  pars  ult.,  p.  72).  ''  Say  whether 
justification  seems  to  be  conferred  on  thee  in  body 
or  in  mind.  But  thou  canst  not  doubt,  since  right- 
eousness, whence  justification  has  been  derived,  is 
of  the  mind  undoubtedly  and  not  of  the  body  " 
(lb.,  vol.  i.,  p.  131).  Then  Augustine, — "  Christ  alone 
is  He  in  whom  all  may  be  justified  ;  because,  not 
only  does  the  imitation  of  Him  make  men  righteous, 
but  grace  regenerating  by  the  Spirit  "  (Op.,  vol.  x.,  p. 
119).  "  For  what  is  being  justified  other  than  being 
made  righteous,  to  wit,  by  Him  who  justifies  the 
ungodly,  that  from  being  ungodly  he  may  be  made 
righteous  ?  "  (Vol.  x.,  p.  228).  "  This  justification, 
therefore,  my  brethren,  we  shall  both  have,  just  as  far 
as  we  have  it,  and  increase  in  proportion  as  we  lack, 
and  make  perfect  when  we  come  where  it  shall  be 
said,  '  O  death  !  where  is  thy  victory?'  etc."  (Vol. 
v.,  p.  922).  '  *'  When  (nature)  is  justified  from 
impiety  by  its  Creator"  (De  Trin.  Ixv.,  C.  8). 
''  Who  has  wrought  righteousness  in  a  man,  but 
He  who  justifies  the  ungodly;  that  is,  by  His 
grace  makes  a  righteous  nian  of  an  impious  man.^" 


144  ^-^^^  God-Alan.  [Book  I  v. 

(Com.  Ps.  cxviii.,  vol.  viii).»  "As  the  salvation  of 
the  Lord  is  spoken  of,  not  as  that  by  which  the 
Lord  is  saved,  but  as  that  which  He  gives  to  those 
whom  He  saves,  so  also  the  grace  of  God  by  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord  is  called  the  righteousness  of  God, 
not  because  the  Lord  is  righteous,  but  because  He 
justifies  those  whom  out  of  a  condition  of  impiety 
He  makes  righteous"  (Vol.  v.,  p.  753).  "That 
men  may  understand  that  they  are  justified  from 
sins  by  the  same  grace  by  which  it  was  effected 
that  the  man  Christ  could  have  no  sins "  (Vol. 
vi.,  p.  250).  "Justification  here  is  imperfect  in  us  " 
(Vol.  v.,  p.  867).  "  When  our  hope  shall  be  com- 
pleted then  also  our  justification  shall  be  com- 
pleted"  (Vol.  v.,  p.  790). 

We  charge  that  Luther,  recoiling  from  the  self- 
righteousness  of  his  Church,  went  among  the  half- 
dozen  subjective  words  of  the  gospel,  and  carried 
one  off,  and  carried  it  over,  without  the  least  sub- 
jective difference,  to  the  forensic  side.  It  is  rare 
that  a  theologic  error  can  be  so  chronologically 
traced.  The  half  dozen  are  these: — "We  are  (i) 
washed,  we  are  (2)  justified  ;  we  are  (3)  sanctified  ;  " 
we  are  (4)  cleansed  ;  we  are  (5)  set  free  ;  we  are  (6) 
quickened.  Of  these,  half  are  a  text  in  the  Bible 
(i  Cor.  vi.  11),  and  that  text  itself  tells  the  story. 
We  are  said  to  be  justified  "  by  the  Spirit,"  (How  is 
that  for  the  forensic?),  and  "justified"  in  the  same 
way  with  our  being  "  washed "  and  "  sanctified." 
Dr.  Hodge  asks  what  is  the  use  of  two  words  if 
justifying  and  sanctifying  mean  the  same  ?     It  is 


Chap.  VI.]  Justification.  145 

an  instance  of  the  headiness  of  debate  ;  for,  quite 
over-riding  such  an  argument,  and,  indeed,  smother- 
ing it  up,  is  the  fact  that  there  are  six  words  ;  in 
reahty  there  are  many  more.  Why  should  there 
not  be  ?  How  many  words  are  there  for  God  ? 
God  is  the  most  important  being  in  theology  :  and 
Father,  Word,  and  Holy  Ghost,  Jehovah,  Jah 
and  Shaddai,  Lord  and  King,  and  Arm,  Most 
High  and  Almighty,  and  in  fact,  a  legion  more, 
testify  to  the  greatness  of  our  Master.  This  gives 
the  timber  for  a  Trinity.  A  Tetrad  could  be  con- 
ceived, and  if  there  were  a  Paganism  to  back  it,  like 
the  Triality  myth,  could  be  taught,  and  could  be 
quoted  for  out  of  the  Holy  Books, — a  Tetrad  or 
a  Quint,  or  any  other  celestial  Pleiades.  The 
''  Word  "  is  almost  the  same  emblem  as  the  Breath 
{"■  Spirit ") ;  yet,  if  the  Fathers  had  their  way, 
some  of  them  would  have  schemed  still  other  Per- 
sonages, and  made  the  Arm  and  the  Arch^  still 
further  hypostatic  in  the  essence  of  the  Godhead 
(Cyprian,  vol.  ii.,  p.  loi  ;  Clark's  Ed.,  Irenaeus,  Haer. 
i.,  8.  5). 

But  if  God  be  the  highest  King,  sanctification  is 
His  highest  act,  and  why  stumble  at  the  thought 
that  it  should  have  many  appellations  ? 

Putting  by  this,  we  come  to  the  graver  plea  that 
Justify  does  not  mean  sanctify,  ?ind  that  ''righteous'' 
has  a  putative  sense  that  takes  it  out  of  the  category 
of  the  other  adjectives.  Where  could  there  be  a 
greater  mistake  ?  There  is  no  ethical  term  that  is 
not  putative  in  the  word  of  God. 


146  The  God-Man.  [Book  IV. 

Paul  says,  "  Holy  brethren  "  (Heb.  iii.  i).  Our 
blessed  Master  says,  *'  Now  ye  are  clean  "  (Jo.  xv. 
3).  The  Psalmist  says,  ''  Mark  the  perfect  man " 
(Ps.  xxxvii.  37).  God  tells  Satan  that  Job,  who 
cried  out  that  his  "  own  clothes  would  abhor  him," 
and  who  said  some  bad  things  for  a  rigid  follower  of 
the  Almighty,  was  ''a  perfect  and  an  upright  man  " 
(Job  i.  8).  It  means  simply  that  saints  had  become 
less  sinful ;  what  else  could  it  mean  ?  A  dawning 
righteousness  being  all  that  is  left  upon  our  planet, 
is  all  that  could  use  the  name,  scripturally  among  the 
saints,  except,  lower  still,  in  comparisons  among  the 
wicked.  When,  therefore,  an  exegete  says  that,  in 
the  Bible,  justify  is  solely  forensic,  his  mistake  is  a 
curious  one,  for  it  divides  itself  oddly  into  three,  (i) 
It  cannot  be  solely  forensic,  for  we  are  told  of  those 
who  ''justify  many"  (Dan.  xii.  3).  Paul  says  we 
are  "  justified  by  the  Spirit  of  God  "  (i  Cor.  vi. 
11).  Isaiah  says,  ''By  his  knowledge  (of  course 
under  its  subjective  power)  shall  my  righteous 
servant  justify  many"  (Is.  liii.  11).  Christ  Himself 
was  justified  in  the  Spirit.  And  John  closes  the 
revelation.  "  He  which  is  filthy  let  him  be  filthy 
still,  and  he  that  is  righteous,  let  him  be  justified 
still,"  ^  that  is,  "  be  made  much  more  righteous " 
(Rev.  xxii.  1 1).  (2)  It  cannot  be  proved  incontest- 
ably  forensic  by  force  of  the  fact  that  the  other 
terms  are  so  entirely  subjective,  for,  oddly  enough, 
the  other  terms  are  oftener  putative  than  this  par- 

*  The  Revisionists,  however,  adopt  a  various  reading  ; — "  Let  them 
4o-righteousness  stjll/' 


Chap.  VI.]  JustiJicatio7i,  147 

ticular  one  which  Luther  bore  away.  This  makes 
this  idolism  of  the  Reformed  so  strangely  baseless. 
Christ  says,  *'  Now  ye  are  clean."  Paul  says,  ''  Now 
are  they  holy."  And  Paul's  saying  is  worse  than 
Christ's,  for  while  Christ  spoke  to  His  filthy  disciples, 
Paul  was  speaking  of  children,  ungodly  in  their  state, 
and,  in  vast  numbers,  never  converted.  We  can't 
match  that  for  putativeness  in  the  uses  of  dinaio^. 
And  when  we  come  to  the  verbs,  the  instances  are 
stronger.  Moses  says,  "  the  priest  shall  cleanse 
him"  (Lev.  xiii.  13,  17),  the  meaning  being  so  evi- 
dent that  King  James  translates,  shall  "  pronounce 
him  clean."  A  little  lower  down  "  the  priest  shall 
foul  him  "  (Lev.  xiii.  6,  8,  1 1),  that  is,  shall  "  pro- 
nounce him  unclean"  (E.  V.).  ''What  God  hath 
cleansed"  (Acts  x.  15),  God  Himself  says,  and 
that  of  heathen  still  in  their  wickedness.  ''  The 
unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  of  her  husband  "  (i 
Cor.  vii.  14),  that  being  said  by  Paul  of  a  lost  woman, 
and  she  a  Pagan.  So  that  the  word  to  "justify" 
is  more  free  than  the  other  words  from  these  unsub- 
jective  uses.  (3)  But,  oddest  of  all,  Luther  claimed 
that  to  be  forensic  which  he  did  not  make  forensic 
himself!  Justification  in  the  Lutheran  ideal  has 
outraged  Roman  Catholics  ;  it  has  driven  away  from 
the  Reformed  such  men  as  Newman,  and  what  is 
strange,  achieved  the  whole  by  linguistic  trifling. 
We  have  had  pleaded  for  us  the  forensic  meaning 
of  the  word  to  justify,  and  had  given  to  it  in  the 
same  breath  other  than  a  forensic  meaning,  and, 
disastrously   above    all,  had   given    to   it  no   mean- 


14B  The  God-Man.  [Book  IV. 

ing,  I  mean  by  that  given  to  it  no  meaning 
which  the  word  possesses  in  any  writing  under 
Heaven  ! 

What  is  a  forensic  meaning?  A  forensic  meaning 
actually  acquits  a  culprit  of  being  unrighteous  at  all. 
That  is  not  the  Lutheran  idea.  When  I  justify  the 
wicked  (Is.  v.  23),  I  assert  his  righteousness  ;  just  as 
much  as  when  I  justify  the  righteous.  When  I  justify 
God  (Lu.  vii.  29),  I  do  the  same.  When  I  justify 
myself  (Lu.  x.  29),  there  is  not  a  shade  of  difference. 
The  caveat  is  never  in  the  word,  but,  if  at  all,  it  is  in 
my  falsity.  When  the  publican  was  ''justified,"  he 
was  made  "more  "  righteous  than  the  other.  I  do 
not  deny  a  putative  idea  to  justify,  for  I  have  shown  it 
in  cleansing  (Acts  xi.  9),  and  in  "  sanctifying"  (i  Tim. 
iv.  5),  but  I  do  deny  any  further  putative  idea,  and 
do  hold  that  it  is  no  known  forensic  sense,  when  I 
am  not  justified  at  all,  but  have  made  over  to  me  in 
an  unnecessary  way  the  obedience  achieved  in 
another  man's  probation. 

What  we  mean  by  justifying,  is  the  same  that  we 
mean  by  sanctifying,  only,  as  in  cleansing  and  quick- 
ening, with  another  pictorial  impressiveness.  When 
I  read  that  I  am  not  to  have  "  my  own  righteousness 
which  is  of  the  law"  (Phil.  iii.  9),  I  mean  that 
though  *'  the  law  "  contain  the  Gospel,  and  is  thun- 
dered  to  me  from  Sinai,  and  repeated  by  our  Master, 
and  I  am  told  that  the  gospel  part  of  the  law  is  the 
more  dangerous,  so  that  speaking  b}^  contrast,  if  He 
had  not  come  and  done  the  works  that  none  other 
man  did,  we  had  not  had  sin,  yet  all   this  would  not 


Chap.  VI.]  Justification,  149 

convert  a  sinner.     *'  By  works  of  the   law  no  flesh 
would  be  made  righteous." 

And  the  whole  thing  will  be  exhibited  better  by 
pausing  on  this  very  text,  and  settling  its  furthest 
meaning. 

Law  {toraJi)  is  derived  from  a  verb  that  means  to 
throw.  When  I  direct  a  traveller,  I  throw  up  my 
hand.  Direction^  therefore,  is  the  first  idea  of  a  law. 
Moses  received  direction  on  Sinai.  And  if  we  count 
the  pages,  we  will  find  there  was  more  of  gospel  on 
the  Mount  than  of  the  Ten  Commandments.  Direc- 
tion, therefore,  includes  the  gospel.  And  ''  works  of 
the  law  "  is  a  title. that  will  reveal  to  us  "  works  of 
our  law,"  or  works  (whatever  that  means)  of  all  that 
"  law  "  or  direction  that  we  preach  to  the  people  every 
Sabbath  day.  Now  let  us  draw  nearer  to  the  phrase. 
The  general  counterpart  to  it  occurs  some  dozen 
times  in  Scripture.  What  does  ''  work  of  grace " 
mean  ?  If  in  a  dozen  texts  such  genitives  had  but  a 
single  meaning,  could  we  hesitate?  And  that  is  the 
fortunate  light  that  is  shed  upon  the  phrase,  the 
"  works  of  the  law."  Let  us  go  over  all  the  list. 
Works  of  light,  works  of  the  Devil,  works  of  dark- 
ness, works  of  Christ,  works  of  the  Spirit,  work  of 
God,  work  of  grace,  work  of  faith,  work  of  an  evan- 
gelist, works  of  Abraham,  works  of  the  flesh,  works 
of  their  hands  ;  this  is  a  wide  generalization  ;  and 
yet  in  every  instance  it  means  works  produced  by 
these  things,  and  not  works  enjoined  by  these  things. 
What  a  shame  that  this  should  have  lain  hid  !  Works 
of  the  gospel,  which  answers  in  part  to  works  of  the 


150  The  God-Man.  [Book  IV. 

law,  for  the  gospel  was  the  chief  of  the  direction 
given  on  Sinai,  cannot  mean  enjoined  by  the  gospel^ 
for  they  indeed  would  certainly  save  us  ;  but  it 
means  produced  by  the  gospel,  and  simply  declares, 
what  Paul  everywhere  insists  (i  Cor.  i.  18,  iii.  6,  I 
Thess.  i.  5),  that  the  gospel  saves  nobody ;  that 
the  throwing  up  a  hand,  and  giving  a  direction  is 
but  the  letter  that  killeth ;  that  Sinai  with  all 
its  Christ,  gendered  to  bondage  (Gal.  iv.  24)  ; 
that  the  Sinais  of  the  Church  smoke  use- 
lessly, without  the  Spirit;  that  they  must  come 
**  not  in  word  only,  but  in  power"  (i  Cor.  iv. 
20),  and  that  by  the  works  of  the  law,  i.  e.,  produced 
by  the  law,  no  single  soul,  that  is  merely  preached 
to,  has  ever  been  delivered.  It  is  idle  to  treat  this 
with  a  scoff ;  because  we  have  the  whole  generaliza- 
tion. Till  works  of  flesh  mean  something  else  than 
works  produced  by  flesh,  it  is  impossible  to  turn 
aside  the  one  meaning  for  "  works  of  the  law." 

And  now,  in  respect  to  'j'ustified^'  the  speech  will 
be  pronounced  wild,  but  wild  speech  ought  to  be 
easily  refuted,  and  our  venture  is  this,  that 
there  is  not  a  case  in  the  word  of  God,  in 
which  to  justify  appears  in  any  gospel  sense,  in 
which  it  does  not  mean  to  make  righteous,  that  is  to 
make  holy.  The  easiest  way  to  exhibit  this  is  to 
match  it  by  expressions  that  have  evidently  the  sub- 
jective sense.  ''  Received  ye  the  Spirit  by  the  works 
of  the  law,  or  by  the  hearing  of  faith?"  (Gal.  iii: 
2).  Turning  in  the  same  context  Godward,  we  have 
the  equivalent  idea,  "  He  that  ministereth   to  you 


Chap.  VI.]  Justification,  1 5 1 

the  Spirit  (which  surely  means  grace  subjective), 
doeth  he  it  by  the  works  of  the  law,  or  by  the  hear- 
ing of  faith  ?  "^  (Gal.  iii.  2,  5.) 

Our  position,  therefore,  will  be  understood.  Justi- 
fication, in  the  Bible  sense,  is  the  great  work  of  re- 
demption. It  is  the  removal  of  our  sinfulness.  Sin- 
fulness being  our  heavier  penalty,  sanctifying  or 
cleansing  is  our  most  essential  release.  Without  a 
word  of  reserve  or  modification,  that  is  what  is  meant 
by  justifying.  It  is  a  work  of  Almighty  grace.  We 
hearof  sanctifying  "gold"  and"  gifts  "and  "guests  " 
(Matt,  xxiii.  17,  19,  Zeph.  i.  7),  but  w^e  never  hear  of 
justifying  them.  We  pray,  "  sanctified  be  Thy  name  " 
(Matt.  vi.  9).  If  this  varied  use  of  the  verb  to  sanc- 
tify does  not  destroy  its  subjectiveness  in  its  tech- 
nical cases,  such  expressions  as  justifying  the  wicked 
(Is.  V.  23),  or  justifying  God  (Lu.  vii.  29),  are  not 
to  destroy  the  subjective  use  of  justifying. 

Hence  to  sum  up  : — 

Three  things  must  be  insisted  on: — 

First,  we  are  not  a  whit  less  forensic  than  Luther. 
Instead  of  putting  our  eggs  in  two  baskets,  we  put 
them  in  one.  We  centre  on  redemption  as  sufficient 
for  all  our  curse.  Instead  of  weakening  our  view  of  the 
transference  of  Christ's  sufferings  to  us,  by  mending 
what  that  could  accomplish,  and  stating  altogether 
a  second  imputation,  we  rest  satisfied  w^ith  the  first, 
and  vest  all  our  hope  in  one  all-sufficient   substitu- 

*  As  textual  refutations  require  much  space,  and  lie  chiefly  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  we  beg  to  refer  the  reader  to  our  own  Com. 
on  that  book. 


152  The  God-Man.  [Book  IV. 

tion.  Can  that  be  a  lessening  of  Christ  which  makes 
one  transfer  enough,  and  detects  the  vice  of  the  Re- 
formed in  inventing  at  this  late  day  a  dual  depend- 
ence for  our  safety  ? 

Second,  we  defend  from  alienation  a  vast  deal  of 
Scripture  speech.  Getting  holy  is  man's  highest 
change.  Making  holy  is  God's  highest  act.  Pre- 
cisely this  is  Christ's  only  purchase.  Being  happy  is 
a  mere  result.  There  ought  to  be  many  words  to 
express  the  blessing.  Detaching  one  of  them,  and 
that  conspicuous  on  the  list,  dislocates  the  work  of 
the  Spirit  :  and 

Third,  tempts  the  heretic.  The  Catholics  know  of 
our  mistake.  They  have  discussed  it  shrewdly. 
They  refute  it  perfectly  (see  Newman  and  Bellar- 
mine).  And  finding  us  to  be  wrong,  they  mistrust 
us  in  other  things.  Permitting  them  one  advantage, 
they  assume  many.  And  as  with  Islam  in  the 
instance  of  the  Trinity,  we  build  a  Church  up  w^hich 
is  all  vile  with  fault,  by  allowing  it  to  see  that  we  are 
false  and  that  it  is  true  as  to  one  of  our  more  con- 
spicuous and  common  statements  of  the  gospel. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

PROBATION. 

We  know  of  no  person,  unless  it  be  God  Himself, 
who  has  arrived  at  permanent  blessedness  without 
probation."^  Of  all  the  instances  of  probation  that 
have  occurred  in  the   universe,  we  can    conceive  of 

*  If  there  be  any  exception  to  this,  it  is  in  idiots  and  infants. 


Chap.  VII.]  Probation.  153 

but  six:  (i)  the  instance  of  other  worlds;  (2)  the 
instance  of  Adam  ;  (3)  the  instance  of  Angels ;  (4) 
the  instance  of  Demons  ;  (5)  the  instance  of  Christ  ; 
(6)  the  instance  of  His  people.  In  all  these,  two 
things  are  to  be  noticed ;  first,  that  no  one  has 
either  lost  or  won  except  through  his  own  exertion, 
and,  second,  that  no  one  has  ever  won,  not  Gabriel, 
not  Christ,  not  any  of  His  people,  except  from  free 
grace  from  God  Almighty.  "Who  maketh  thee  to 
differ?  "  is  a  question  that  might  be  asked  from  all 
of  them.  This  is  an  intensely  interesting  theologi- 
cal fact.  Men  are  in  the  habit  of  imagining  that 
grace  is  favor  to  the  wicked.  It  is  not  so.  Grace  is 
favor.  That  is  the  meaning  of  the  word.  Favor  to 
the  wicked  is  eminent  grace,  but  favor  to  Gabriel 
was  all  that  saved  him.  Had  Satan  recognized  this 
he  would  not  have  fallen.  We  say  it  is  intensely 
interesting,  because  it  clears,  more  than  anything, 
two  facts  ;  first,  entire  moral  agency,  and,  second, 
entire  divine  help.  That  will  be  a  grand  theology 
that  will  keep  these  two  things  together.  We  are 
accustomed  to  see  moral  agency  in  the  instance  of 
Gabriel,  and  to  proclaim  him  free,  and  to  count 
him  meritorious.  We  are  convinced  that  he  won 
his  ovv^n  integrity,  and  fancy  that  Paul  is  with  us ; 
and  that  the  angelic  victory  was  by  works,  and  by 
self-conquest  with  which  man  has  nothing  to  do. 
We  venture  to  remark  that  man  is  saved  by  works 
as  much  as  Gabriel.  Let  us  make  here  a  great  dis- 
tinction. We  put  out  of  sight  altogether  grace 
forensic.     Throw  that   over  the  wall.     We  build   a 


154  The  God-Man.  [Book  IV. 

coffer-dam,  and  shut  out  one  set  of  gospel  facts  in 
absolute  separation.  We  have  nothing  to  do  with 
them.  As  concerns  his  situation  in-  court  Gabriel 
stood  upon  his  works,  and  was  forensically  perfect. 
It  is  the  opposite  of  all  this  in  man  which  is  climb- 
ing over  the  wall  and  mixing  itself  perpetually  with 
his  oblis:ation  to  do  work.  Works  can't  save  him 
forensically,  but  works  must  save  him  in  his  pro- 
bation. Gabriel  was  created  and  put  upon  his 
trial.  He  must  be  saved  sheerly  by  his  agency. 
And  yet  he  must  be  saved  by  grace.  This  we  fix 
much  quicker  in  the  instance  of  Gabriel  than  in  the 
instance  of  ourselves.  And  again,  it  was  free  to 
him  to  stand,  and  to  do  so,  as  all  admit,  necessarily 
by  his  moral  agency.  Then  Adam  came  upon  the 
scene,  and  with  the  identical  moral  trial.  Then 
Christ  was  drafted  for  the  fight,  and  with  the  identi- 
cal probation  ;  that  is  to  say,  He  must  stand  by  His 
own  moral  act,  and  He  must  lean  heavily  for  help 
upon  the  God  within  Him.  What  is  forensical  must 
be  put  quite  out  of  sight,  for  there  man  and  angel 
differ  immensely;  but  what  is  probational  brings  all 
tribes  together.  No  soul  without  a  probation.  And, 
that  one  tribe  starts  fair  and  that  another  tribe 
starts  fallen,  makes  no  difference  as  to  the  facts ; 
grace  and  personal  exertion  must  reign  in  all  of 
them. 

If  any  man  ask,  therefore,  how  much  must  I  look 
for  in  myself,  and  how  much  must  I  look  for  in  my 
Maker  ?  I  give  him  his  clearest  view  by  pointing 
him  to  Gabriel.     I  say  how  much  had   he  to   look 


Chap.  VII.]  Probation.  155 

for?  In  one  conscious  sense  entirely  to  himself 
and  in  one  conscious  sense  entirely  to  his  Creator, 
and  we  do  not  begin  to  understand  the  nature  of 
grace  till  we  feel  that  we  are  put  upon  a  trial  as 
much  as  Adam. 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  alters  entirely  the  nature 
of  redemption.  It  is  not  a  common  ransom  like 
many  on  our  planet.  It  did  not  finish  transgression 
and  make  an  end  of  sin,  so  that  when  Christ  died 
everybody  was  bought  off,  and,  like  a  disinfected 
ship,  the  pestilence  w^as  ended.  It  was  rather  like  a 
chance  to  try  again.  Adam  had  a  chance  to  remain 
holy.  We  have  a  chance  to  recover  holiness.  This 
was  the  purchase  of  our  Sufferer.  Grace  was  re- 
quired for  Gabriel,  but  more  grace  is  required  for 
us;  in  fact  very  different  grace;  for,  in  the  first 
place,  forensic  satisfaction  had  to  be  procured,  and 
then  abnormal  influences.  The  actual  results  were 
these : — First,  a  new  probation  was  offered,  with 
abnormal  influences  of  grace  to  assist  the  combat- 
ants, and,  second,  forensic  satisfaction,  so  that  a 
faithful  combatant  should  be  rid  of  his  guilt,  and 
win  his  way  back  into  the  garden  of  the  blessed. 

I  do  not  see  that  I  am  omitting  anything.  We 
shall  hear  the  outcry.  Salvation  by  works  !  Paul 
says,  There  is  such  a  thing  (Rom.  ii.  13).  We 
shall  explain  that  in  another  chapter.  Suffice  it  to 
say.  Redemption  sheer  Is  not  met  with.  Otherwise 
all  men  altogether  would  be  redeemed,  and  that 
from  all  sin  and  from  the  beginning.  Broken  of 
that,  we  have  to  feel  our  way  for  the  reality,  and  the 


156  The  God-Man.  [Book  IV. 

reality  comes  to  this,  that  the  poor  sinner  has 
another  chance,  out  of  unmerited  grace,  as  by  a  ran- 
som, with  forensic  release  if  he  applies  for  it,  with 
gradual  betterment  if  he  tries  after  it,  and  with 
sovereign  grace,  allthe  way  higher  and  more  remark- 
able and  yet  not  a  whit  more  decisive  than  that 
which  saved  the  angelic  remnant. 

If  I  be  asked.  Do  you  believe,  therefore,  as  an 
Arminian,  that  grace  floats  like  an  atmosphere  about 
our  planet,  and  that  the  saved  soul  is  the  one  that 
is  shrewd  enough  to  breathe  it,  and  that  the  richness 
of  this  grace  and  the  forensic  settlement  that  will 
follow  are  just  that  which  was  purchased  by  the 
blood  of  sprinkling,  I  say.  Unquestionably  not. 
Gabriel  was  saved  by  grace.  Moses  was  saved  by 
grace.  Gabriel  did  not  snatch  at  a  circumambient 
influence,  the  same  as  floated  by  the  less  prudent 
Lucifer  ;  but  he  was  what  the  Bible  calls  an  elected 
angel  (i  Tim.  v.  21),  and  yet  it  is  easier  to  see  in 
him  than  in  a  lost  man,  that  it  was  himself  that 
saved  himself;  that  he  had  to  stir  himself  up  to 
lay  hold  of  the  Almighty  (Is.  Ixiv.  7),  and  yet  that 
a  downright  and  special  grace  seized  him  and  stirred 
him  and  made  him  to  differ. 

These  two  facts  have  to  be  held  in  solution,  the 
one  with  the  other.  Instrumentally  he  saved  him- 
self, and  yet,  sovereignly,  the  Almighty  saved  him, 
by  influences  that  moved  upon  his  will  and  held  him 
steadfast  by  their  superior  graciousness. 

And  yet,  if  the  question  be  asked.  Why  is  William 
saved  more  than  Richard,  or  to  go  out  to  a  clearer 


Chap.  VII.]  Probation.  157 

atmosphere,  Why  was  Gabriel  saved  more  than 
Satan,  we  have  to  go  back  toward  that  circumam- 
bient thought,  after  all.  God  is  no  respecter  of  per- 
sons. He  has  certain  rules  for  saving  His  creatures. 
He  never  changes.  We  can  change,  but  not  He. 
Gabriel  had  really  privileges  that  God  had  not. 
Known  unto  God  from  the  beginning  are  all  His 
works.  We  are  undoubtedly  free.  We  may  repent 
to-morrow,  and  do  those  simple  things  which  will 
invite  deliverance.  But  God  is  governed  by  a  plan. 
We  cannot  sufificiently  remember  that  that  plan  is 
eternal  righteousness.  He  can  save  one  man,  and 
not  another.  And  Paul  lets  us  into  some  occasions  ; 
for  he  says  (tracing  his  salvation  to  himself),  I  ob- 
tained mercy  because  I  did  it  ignorantly  in  unbe- 
lief (i  Tim.  i.  13).  And  even  Christ  is  not  ashamed 
to  utter  principles  that  govern  God,  for  He  says, 
"  Father,  forgive  them ;  they  know  not  what  they 
do  "  (Lu.  xxiii.  34). 

Probation,  therefore,  with  grace  to  use  it  to  our 
advantage,  is  the  shape  in  which  Christ's  redemp- 
tion comes  to  His  people.  And  a  man  may  be  saved 
by  effort  of  his  own,  as  surely  as  Adam  could  have 
been  saved,  or  Gabriel  could  have  been  saved,  or 
Satan  or  Christ  could  have  been  saved,  that  is  by 
grace  appearing  in  these  very  efforts,  made  possible 
by  a  righteous  plan,  and  administered  to  those  who 
are  pointed  out  for  it  by  eternal  rectitude. 


158  The   God-Man.  [Book  l v. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

REGENERATION,  SANCTIFICATION,  REPENTANCE,  AND  CONVERSION. 

It  is  useful  to  fix  theology  by  points,  as  a  sculptor 
does  his  clay  model.  One  pin  that  can  be  fixed,  is  a 
better  life.  All  pardon  must  come  through  a  proba- 
tion, and,  as  all  probationers,  even  the  vilest,  have 
a  conscience,  the  pin  that  can  be  fixed  is  this, 
that  whereas,  before  his  pardon,  a  sinner  was  grow- 
ing worse,  at  the  date  of  pardon  he  converts,  that 
is,  he  grows  better ;  to  speak  with  respect  to  God, 
he  is  converted,  that  is,  he  is  made  better  ;  he  is  sanc- 
tified, a  word  that  alludes  to  his  betterment  after- 
ward as  well  as  to  the  first  act  of  betterment ;  he 
is  regenerated,  which  is  the  first  act  of  betterment 
alone ;  and  he  repents,  that  is,  he  thinks  back  to 
what  he  has  been  in  the  past,  and  hates,  on  its  own 
account,  his  discovered  wickedness.  These  all  indi- 
cate one  thing  as  of  God  and  as  of  the  man.  Con- 
version and  repentance  indicate  it  as  of  the  man, 
and  conversion  (in  a  transitive  sense),  regeneration 
and  sanctification  indicate  it  as  of  God.  But  all 
these  vocables  cover  the  one  change.  The  change  is 
a  fixed  pin.  Fix  what  others  we  may,  this  one  will 
never  be  displaced.  And  it  is  of  infinite  importance 
in  preaching.  The  man  who  grows  better,  is  being 
saved.  The  man  who  grows  worse,  is  being  lost. 
And  the  betterment  must  be  in  the  ten  command- 
ments, that  common  improvement  in  morals  which 
consists  in  higher  benevolence  and  higher  regard 
for  the  principle  of  virtue. 


Chap.  VIIL]  Regeneration  etc.  159 

And,  now,  a  fixing  of  this  moral  pin  settles  some 
things  peremptorily.  Other  pins  may  be  fixed,  but 
they  must  not  interfere  with  this. 

(i)  A  man  who  preaches.  Grow  better  and  you 
will  be  saved,  or.  Grow  worse  and  you  will  be  lost,  is 
not  preaching  law  simply,  but  gospel. 

(2)  The  man  who  says.  The  soul  is  active  in  sanc- 
tification,  but  passive  in  regeneration,  has  pulled 
the  one  pin  out  and  set  in  two.  If  repentance  be 
the  beginning  of  a  saved  life,  and  regeneration  be  its 
beginning  also,  and  repentance  be  so  absolutely  the 
beginning,  that  nothing  but  forensic  ransom  precedes 
it  in  the  order  of  events;  moreover,  if  we  are  com- 
manded to  be  regenerate  (Jer.  iv.  14,  Ez.  xviii. 
30-32),  precisely  with  the  same  emphasis  with  which 
we  are  commanded  to  repent,  and  if  the  grace  to 
make  us  repent  is  precisely  the  same  grace  that 
makes  us  regenerate,  what  a  snare  it  is  to  lift  an 
ounce  weight  from  our  sense  of  obligation,  and  to 
produce  what  has  actually  been  the  result  (Is.  v.  19), 
a  waiting  for  the  coming  of  the  Spirit,  in  that  which, 
of  all  other  moments,  should  be  summoning  our 
utmost  activeness. 

All  our  help  must  come  from  our  Creator.  All 
our  righteousness  must  have  its  light  given  from  on 
high.  But  not  only  had  we  some  light  before,  viz., 
our  common  conscience  ;  not  only  had  we  more  light 
just  before,  viz.,  our  convicted  conscience;  not  only 
was  this  convicted  conscience  at  work,  and  that  in  the 
most  active  form  ;  but,  in  the  very  act  of  conversion, 
and,  speaking  simply  in  an  obverse  view,  in  the  very 


1 60  The  God-Man,  [Book  IV. 

act  of  being  converted  (in  which  there  is  no  difference 
from  being  regenerated),convicted  conscience  merged 
into  converted  conscience,  no  moment  relaxing  its 
acts,  but  each  moment  increasing  them  as  the  very 
subjects  of  God's  moving  graciousness. 

To  this  agrees  the  idea  that  we  are  saved  by  the 
truth.  What  influence  could  the  truth  have  unless 
winged  by  the  Spirit  ?  And  what  wing  could  the 
truth  have  except  the  wing  of  thought,  and  the 
power  that  it  could  exert  as  God's  actual  power,  not 
on  a  passive  state,  but  on  a  state  active  with 
thought,  approaching  the  right  condition,  and 
moved  on  to  it,  not  in  the  dead  of  sleep,  but  work- 
ing its  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling  (Phil, 
ii.  12)? 

(3.)  It  may  be  said,  we  speak  nothing  about  faith, 
and  that  is  the  thing  we  have  yet  to  explain.  We 
have  fixed  one  sculptor's  point,  and  in  faith  we 
proceed  to  set  in  another.  It  is  like  a  tent  pin  ;  it 
must  not  be  allowed  to  pull  out  its  mate.  When 
we  come  to  speak  of  faith,  it  must  start  fair  like 
horses  upon  a  track.  The  theologians  tell  us  that 
sanctification  is  the  consequence  of  faith  (Hodge, 
Syst.  Theol.,  vol.  iii.,  p.  108).  This  is  true  in  one 
unfair  particular — that  sanctification  is  the  conse- 
quence of  sanctification,  or  one  degree  of  faith  of 
another.  But  that  anything  displaces  our  first  pin, 
viz.,  that  betterment  is  the  very  dawning  of  the 
gospel,  is  to  flout  Christ,  who  began,  ''  Repent,"  is 
to  provoke  the  prophet,  who  said,  "  Make  you  anew 
heart "  (Ez.  xviii.  31),  and  is  to  counter-teach  the 


Chap.  VIII.]  Regeneration  etc.  i6i 

apostles,  who,  we  are  told  plainly,  went  out  every- 
where teaching  Repentance  and  Conversion  for  the 
remission  of  sins  (Acts  ii.  38,  iii.  19).  To  say 
that  holiness  is  the  effect  of  faith  (Hodge,  vol.  iii., 
p.  109),  is  to  forget  all  that  the  theologians  them- 
selves have  taught.  What  is  regeneration  but  a 
moral  change  ?  Nevertheless  we  have  been  dis- 
tinctly warned  that  faith  is  the  effect  of  regenera- 
tion {ib.  vol.  iii.,  p.  59).  Now  to  teach  that  faith 
is  the  effect  of  regeneration,  and  then  to  teach  that 
regeneration  is  the  effect  of  faith,  is  to  make  fun  of 
all  logic.  The  radical  idea  is  an  error.  Faith,  as  we 
shall  see,  is  itself  a  holy  act.  It  is  one  of  the  things 
that  regeneration  appears  in,  like  charity  or  holy  liv- 
ing. This  is  a  definition  that  Luther  displaced. 
Common  faith  is  not  a  fruit  of  regeneration  ;  but 
when  common  faith  has  driven  us  to  terror,  the 
prayer  we  offer  is  heard  in  saving  faith;  that  is  as 
much  a  holiness  as  repentance  or  any  grace.  The 
whole  choir  of  graces  spring  into  existence  at  a  blow. 
They  are  all  regeneration.  They  are  all  sanctifica- 
tion  and  newness  of  life.  And  Christianity  on  earth 
is  nothing  but  a  series  of  faith  :  love  and  any  other 
divine  perception  being  but  the  opening  of  a  moral 
eye  ^  (Matt.  vi.  22,  Eph.  i.  18),  the  receiving  of  the 
love  of  the  truth  (2  Thess.  ii.  10)  and,  of  course, 
the  essence  and  beginning  of  a  life  of  holiness. 

*\Ve  stamp,  thereftre,  upon  our  covers  Christ's  great  text  about  the 
"  EYE"  ;  and,  above  all,  upon  the  title-page,  that  long-lost  wording  of 
the  MSS.,  not,  '■'■the  eyes  of  your  urtderstandingbemg  enlightened''''  (E.  V.), 
but  "the  eyes  of  you?-  heart '^  (Re.),  a  great  boon  from  the  Greek,  and  a 
great  motto  for  reform  in  the  Metaphysics  and  in  the  Hermcnentics  of  our 
common  Protestantism. 


1 62  The  God-Man,  [Book  IV. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

FAITH. 

Redemption  not  being  redemption  absolute 
but  conditioned,  and  the  condition  of  redemp- 
tion being  success  in  a  new  trial,  it  has  pleased 
God  that  success  in  that  new  probation  shall  not 
be  achieved  without  His  help,  and  that  His  help 
shall  not  be  received  without  asking  for  it,  and  that 
with  persevering  strength.  This,  perhaps,  is  not 
peculiar,  for  we  have  already  surmised  that  Gabriel 
won  his  victory  by  asking  help.  Perhaps  it  is  not 
even  inexplicable  ;  for,  the  thing  needed  being  holi- 
ness, and  God  being  the  fountain  of  all  good,  it 
would  seem  impossible  that  a  man  should  set  out  to 
get  betterment  of  life  without  two  things,  first,  an 
effort  to  be  better,  and,  second,  a  prayer  for  it ;  and 
these  are  the  two  great  seminal  graces,  watching  and 
prayer,  and  the  latter  of  these  is  done  up  in  that 
current  word  in  theology,  so  frightfully  abused, 
which  we  wish  now  to  discuss,  viz..  Faith. 

The  unregenerate  long  after  some  subterfuge. 
The  Patriarchs  found  it  in  sacrifices;  the  Jews,  in 
circumcision  and  the  blood  of  Abraham  ;  the  Catho- 
lics, in  confession  and  an  outward  Mass  ;  the  Protest- 
ants, in  Faith.  This  is  really  the  history  of  the  true 
religion.  It  begins  pure,  with  a  downright  demand 
upon  the  soul  of  a  better  life,  and  it  is  evaded  every 
time.  We  are  not  sure  that  the  church  is  not  more 
corrupt  now  than   in   the  days  of  Luther,  and   that 


Chap.  IX.]  Faith.  1 63 

enormous  frauds,  most  often  through  the  confidence 
of  good  men,  are  not  indicative  of  a  more  dignified 
form  of  wickedness,  but  of  a  wickedness  more  pro- 
foundly deep  than  of  those  vulgar  grossnesses 
which  prevailed  in  the  age  of  the  Reformed. 

The  fiction  of  the  Protestant  religion  is  more 
strangely  insidious  than  Ashtaroth  or  the  Popish 
Mass.  It  is,  that  men  can  get  to  Heaven  by  believ- 
ing things.  To  put  it  in  familiar  words,  that  faith 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  made  as  simple  as  we  can, 
and  with  everything  dissected  out  of  it  save  a  per- 
sonal trust  to  Him,  will  save  a  soul. 

See  how  the  real  condition  is  dexterously  evaded. 
Christ's  first  outcry  was.  Repent.  We  have  seen 
how  a  moral  betterment  was  the  first  requirement 
of  salvation.  The  world  has  heard  it  and  escaped  it 
from  the  Patriarchs  down  ;  and  now  we  have  it  moved 
back  and  got  out  of  the  way  in  our  highest  Protest- 
antism by  the  idea  that  repentance  is  the  conse- 
sequence  of  faith  (Hodge,  vol.  iii,  108-9),  ^^<^  by  the 
Pelagian  thought  that  he  that  believes  will  be  will- 
ing to  obey,  from  his  acknowledgment  of  his  debt  to 
the  Christ  that  saves  him  (Hodge,  vol.  iii.  p.  94). 

Let  us  plainly  exhibit,  therefore,  what  faith  is.  It  is 
not  a  mere  believing.  The  man  who  has  the  sharpest 
faith  is  not  the  man  most  likely  to  be  saved.  Some 
old  negress  may  have  scarcely  any.  A  man  may  be 
convicted  every  year,  and  that  with  the  very  strong- 
est beliefs  ;  and  if  belief  be  all,  and  that  dissected 
down  to  the  very  simplest  conception  of  believing, 
where  is  the  difference,  and   what  change  does   the 


164  The  God-Ma7t,  [Book  IV. 

man's  believing  take  on,  when  it  emerges  from  that 
which  is  common  into  that  which  must  be  totally 
another  thing,  viz.,  gracious  and  saving  ? 

Now  supply  one  feature,  and  the  difficulty  van- 
ishes. Say  simply  that  it  must  be  MORAL.  Bring 
back  the  old  Catholic  definition  that  it  must  be  '*  a 
faith  infused  with  love."  A  man  will  be  regener- 
ated when  he  does  two  things,  (i)  try  to  be  holy, 
and  (2)  call  upon  God  for  help.  He  must  do  it  per- 
severingly.  Indeed,  short  of  full  perseverance, 
what  is  his  condition?  Surely  not  a  saved  one. 
And  yet,  in  his  earnest  calling,  he  has  undoubted 
faith.  He  would  not  call  unless  he  believed.  And 
yet  his  belief  does  not  save  him  (except  as  the  im- 
pulse a  parte  ante)  till  his  prayer  is  heard.  The 
whole  enterprise,  I  mean  the  whole  man's  earnest 
setting  out  to  pray,  is  covered  by  that  vocable 
''^  faith!'  and  yet  it  is  not  a  successful  enterprise  till 
it  succeeds,  that  is,  till  God  hasshined  into  the  heart, 
and  blessed  moral  illumination  makes  the  faith  the 
faith  of  a  regenerated  conscience. 

This  solves  the  puzzle  to  which  I  have  already 
alluded.  If  faith  were  the  effect  of  regeneration,  and 
holiness  the  effect  of  faith,  we  would  have  the  sole- 
cism, that  a  moral  change  was  that  which  produced 
faith,  and  that  faith  was  that  which  produced  a  moral 
change.  Whereas,  if  faith  itself  must  be  esteemed 
moral,  then  it  takes  its  place  with  love  and  hope 
and  all  our  moral  grace.  It  is  but  one  act  of  a  new- 
born sanctification,  and  a  very  seminal  act,  because 
a  common  faith  mergres  into    it.     A  common    faith 


Chap.  IX.]  Faith,  165 

brought  me  to  my  knees  ;  a  common  faith  was  the 
beginning  of  an  essential  seeking ;  and  just  that, 
an  essential  seeking,  when  effused  with  moral  suc- 
cess, is  but  another  name  for  faith,  and  an  abund- 
antly sufficient  name  for  actual  regeneration. 

I  do  not  care  to  settle  the  question  how  far  a  faith 
in  God  must  be  a  faith  in  the  blessed  Redeemer.  Of 
the  original  Great  Po^^er  **he  that  cometh  must 
believe  that  He  is,  and  that  He  is  a  rewarder  of 
them  that  diligently  seek  Him."  How  far  it  must 
be  God  in  Christ,  no  mortal  can  determine.  The 
*'  Father  of  the  faithful  "could  hardly  have  understood 
Him,  or  Solomon  either,  or  Peter  either  (Acts  i.  6),  or 
Salome  either  (Matt.  xx.  21),  or  Cornelius  either 
(Acts  X.  i).  How  far  a  man  can  be  ignorant  of 
Emmanuel,  and  yet  repent,  no  tongue  can  tell.  No 
man  can  do  without  Emmanuel,  for  He  must  look 
after  our  forensic  state  (Heb.  ix.  22);  no  saint  can 
reject  Emmanuel,  if  He  is  preached  to  him,  and  he 
looks  Him  in  the  face  (Lu.  x.  16,  i  Cor.  xii.  3);  but 
that  a  man  may  misunderstand  Emmanuel,  or  be 
largely  ignorant  of  His  person,  is  a  condition  the 
salvableness  out  of  which  no  mortal  can  settle,  if 
only  the  man  believes  in  his  Maker,  and  believes  in 
that  mercy  and  love  so  beautifully  incarnate  in  that 
misunderstood  Deliverer. 

To  get  ready  for  the  next  chapter  we  are  ready 
now  to  take  very  strong  ground.  All  righteous- 
ness, in  the  second  meaning  of  that  word,  that  is, 
not  (i)  quality,  and  not  (3)  character,  but  (2)  things 
that  possess  the  quality,  or  form  the  character,  must 


1 66  The  God-Man.  [Book  IV. 

be  actual  exercises,  or,  to  come  closer  down,  things 
that  are  instances  of  the  emotion  of  benevolence  or 
the  love  of  holiness.  If  faith  be  such  an  instance, 
if  the  Roman  Catholic  account  of  it  is  true,  and  fides 
forniata,  being  saving,  is  faith  infused  with  love, 
then  faith,  when  it  reaches  that  quality  of  holiness, 
has  as  good  a  right  to  be  the  condition  of  salvation 
as  any  other  holy  exercise.  The  Bible  tells  us  we 
are  saved  by  hope  (Rom.  viii.  24),  ^ve  are  saved  by 
love  (Ex.  XX.  6,  Jas.  i.  12),  we  are  saved  by  the  new 
birth  (Ti.  iii.  5),  we  are  saved  by  works  (Rom.  ii.  13), 
we  are  saved  by  patience  (Matt.  x.  22) ;  it  not  even 
shrinks  from  our  being  saved  by  baptism  (i  Pet.  iii. 
21),  baptism,  in  that  case,  meaning  all  that  the 
emblem  shadows  forth.  And  it  is  especially  fond 
of  exalting  faith  ;  and  the  reason  is  not  far  to  travel 
after.  If  seeking  God  is  essential  to  deliverance, 
and  faith  is  nothing  more  than  seeking  God,  then 
(like  repentance  when  it  is  no  more  common  re- 
pentance), when  it  becomes  saving-faith,  and,  like 
alms-giving,  when  it  is  no  more  from  imperfect 
motive,  it  enters  the  round  of  graces,  and  if  hope 
(made  at  last  holy),  will  be  our  salvation,  faith 
eminently  will,  and  that  it  was  imputed  to  Abraham 
for  righteousness  has  nothing  to  do  with  a  forensic 
act,  and  means  that  the  Great  Patriarch  himself  was 
accounted  righteous. 

The  very  form  of  the  statement,  then,  is  easily 
managed.  It  was  imputed  to  him.  He  was  not 
really  righteous.  His  very  miracle  of  faith  was  a 
grievous    short-coming.     *'  There    is    no  just  man 


Chap.  IX.j  Faith,  1 67 

(Ec.  vii.  20).  We  have  looked  at  that  already. 
When  Phinehas  slew  the  Midianitess  (Num.  xxv.  8), 
it  sends  a  sunbeam  into  our  chapter  through  the 
imputation  of  that  for  righteousness  (Ps.  cvi.  30,  31), 
and  it  shows  what  that  expression  means.  It  means 
what  Christ  meant  (Jo.  xv.  3),  and  what  Paul  meant 
(i  Thess.  V.  27),  and  what  Job  meant  (Job  xvii.  9), 
and  what  the  whole  Bible  means,  when  they  call 
men  holy  who  are  less  sinful.  It  means  a  righteous- 
ness of  their  own.  It  means  the  dawning  of  a  better 
life.  It  means  what  would  consign  a  man  to  the  pit 
if  it  were  not  some  day  better.  It  means  what 
Paul  calls  the  hope  of  righteousness  which  is  by 
faith.  It  means  the  path  of  life  which  is  upward 
for  the  wise,  to  depart  from  hell  beneath  (Prov. 
XV.  24).  It  means  that  Phinehas  believed  God,  and 
was  warmed  up  in  that  act  to  a  high  moral  life  :  but 
that  what  was  righteousness  in  him  was  sinful,  be- 
cause it  was  a  condition  of  only  less  sinfulness  ;  that 
it  was  called  righteousness  for  short,  and  for  its 
promise  in  its  growth  and  end  ;  and,  therefore,  that 
with  Abraham  and  with  Phinehas  and  with  all  the 
saints,  that  is  true  which  has  been  spoken,  that 
their  very  best  righteousnesses  were  but  as  filthy 
rags. 

We  can  understand  now  a  great  round  of  Scripture 
texts.  We  are  said  to  be  ''  sanctified  "  or  ^'  purified  " 
or  (as  we  shall  see  in  the  next  chapter)  "justified" 
in  different  relations  to  faith.  These  relations  are 
expressed  by  cases  and  by  prepositions.  Let  us 
study   this   whole    subject.     The    prepositions    are 


1 68  The  God-Man.  [Book  l v. 

three,  in,  by,  and  out  of.  The  cases  are  two,  Genitive 
and  Dative. 

And  first  of  the  Genitive ;  when  we  read  of  *'  the 
righteousness  of  faith  "  (Rom.  iv.  13)  we  mean  that 
which  consists  of  faith,  and  we  defy  any  Greek 
scholar  to  understand  it  differently.  '*  Obedience  of 
faith  "  (Rom.  i.  5)  means  faith  as  the  absolute  obe- 
dience, or,  in  other  words,  that  vital  obedience  of 
the  sinner  which  is  urged  upon  him  in  that  vital 
duty  of  seeking  God  (Ps.  xxiv.  6).  "  Hearing  of 
faith  "  (Gal.  iii.  2)  means  that  hearing  which  faith 
does  or  has.  The  Genitive  in  all  such  instances  is 
the  ''  Genitive  of  material.'' 

Then  comes  the  Dative.  "  Purifying  their  hearts 
by  faith  "  (Acts  xv,  9)  means,  if  we  study  the  cases, 
''  in  the  shape  of  faith,"  or  that  the  faith  was  itself 
the  purity.  By  faith  we  understand  (Heb.  xi.  3). 
Why  ?  Because  the  understanding  is  itself  the  faith. 
And  so  of  the  other  sentences.  ''  By  faith  Abel 
offered  unto  God."  That  is  faith  made  the  offer- 
ing. Coming  nearer  :  "  Sanctified  by  faith  "  (Acts 
xxvi.  18).  In  this  case  sanctification  is  the  faith. 
Strong  in  faith  (Rom.  iv.  19),  and  weak  in  faith 
(Rom.  iv.  20),  access  in  faith  (Rom.  v.  2),  standing 
by  faith  (Rom.  xi.  20),  justified  by  faith  (Rom.  iii. 
28),  continuing  in  faith  (Col.  i.  23),  striving  (Phil.  i. 
27),  united  (Heb.  iv.  2),  steadfast  (i  Pet.  v.  9), 
building  yourselves  (Jude  20)  in  faith,  all  show  the 
Dative  of  material,  and  all  mean  that  the  strength 
and  the  weakness  and  the  access  and  the  stand  and 
the  continuance   and  the  striving  and  the  uniting 


Chap.  IX.]  Faith.  1 69 

and  the  steadfastness  and  the  building  and,  there- 
fore also,  the  justification,  are  the  faith  ;  the  weak- 
ness itself  even  (Rom.  iv.  19),  being  the  material 
state  of  the  weak  believer. 

When  the  prepositions  are  introduced,  the  idea 
changes  a  little. 

It  changes  very  little  in  fV,  a  little  more  in  in,  or 
out  of,  and  a  good  deal  more  in  8ia,  or  by  means  of. 
Let  us  give  instances  of  each  of  the  three : 

When  Paul  says,  ''  I  live  by  faith  of  the  Son 
of  God  "  (Gal  ii.  20),  the  preposition  is  iv  ;  and  the 
sense  has  but  little  divergence  from  the  material 
Dative.  The  idea  is  that  the  faith  is  the  life.  When 
he  says,  ''established  in  faith  "  (Col  ii.  7),  it  means, 
as  far  as  human  eye  can  see,  the  same  as  ''  estab- 
Hshed  in  faith  "  (Acts  xvi.  5)  with  the  material 
Dative.  The  translators  have  no  right  to  say,  "  in 
the  faith,"  for  the  article  is  appearing  always.  They 
should  translate  it  generally,  or  omit  it    generally.^ 

*We  have  been  greatly  interested  in  this  by  a  recent  study  of  Jude. 
An  unnoticed  aim  of  that  epistle  is  to  warn  against  a  fall  from  grace. 
"Kept  in  Jesus  Christ  "  (v.  i),  corresponds  to  a  closing  counsel, 
"keep  yourselves  in  the  love  of  God  ''  (v.  21)  ;  and  the  danger  of  not 
persevering  is  expressed  by  the  Israelites'  passing  the  sea  and  then 
smitten  in  the  wilderness  (v.  5),  and  again  still  more  appositely  by  the 
angels'  keeping  not  their  first  estate  (v.  6).  The  Apostle  gives  a  re- 
cipe against  such  a  disaster  by  the  veiy  peculiar  and  very  intelligent 
entreaty  that  we  push  faith,  when  we  once  get  it  in  possession. 
"  Urgently  exert  faith  when  once  bestowed  "  (v.  3).  The  same  idea 
occurs  afterward — "  Building  yourselves  up  on  your  very  holiest 
faith  "(v.  20);  the  commandment  being,  that,  in  order  to  keep  our 
faith,  we  are  to  push  it  when  once  possessed  ;  the  warrant  for  such  a 
translation  being,  first,  that  "'the  faith,"  as  meaning  the  thing  to  be 
believed,  is  probably  without  warrant,  no  such  use  being  found  in  the 
classics,  the  article  meaning  nothing  in  the  case  (see  Matt.  ix.  22. 
Lu.  xviii.    8,   Acts  xv.  9),  and  no  text   of  Scripture  meaning  neces- 


170  The  God-Man.  [Book  IV. 

It  Is  used  In  the  most  spiritual  sentences.  And, 
therefore,  when  the  English  gives  it,  "  Stand  fast  in 
the  faith  "  (  i  Cor.  xvl.  13),  it  gives  it  with  no  more 
right  than  in  a  score  of  other  sentences  (Rom.  Hi. 
25,  30,  31,  iv.  14,  19,  20,  I  Cor.  xiii.  2).  The  mean- 
ing is,  that  we  are  to  stand  fast  in  faith,  and  the  iv 
manifests  that  "  in  "  which  we  are  to  stand  fast,  viz., 
that  faith  itself  is  the  thing  to  be  established. 

With  8K  it  begins  to  veer  a  little.  Faith  is  not 
only  itself  our  righteousness,  but  the  germ  of  a  bet- 
ter and  a  higher.  We  are  sanctified  out  of  our  faith  as 
an  earnest  of  growth,  as  well  as  in  it  as  the  inatei'ial 
thine.  The  ideas  are  different.  Faith  is  itself  sancti- 
fication,  inasmuch  as,  being  a  moral  act,  it  is  as 
much  holiness  as  hope  or  love  or  what,  as  belonging 
to  a  sinner,  is  holiness  itself  (i  Tim.  ii.  15).  But 
faith  also  is  a  promise  of  more,  and,  therefore,  in  is 
highly  appropriate. 

And  not  to  tarry,  8ioc  is  of  the  same  complexion. 
Not  only  is  faith  itself  sanctification  ;  not  only  is  it 
a  germ  of  more  sanctification  {iit),  but  still  further, 
too,  it  is  as  an  instrument  of  sanctification.  "  By 
means  of  {dia)  faith  "  is  no  more  a  puzzle  in  cleans- 
ing, than  by  means  of  charity,  or  by  means  of  holy 
living.  And  as  faith,  after  it  becomes  holy,  still  em- 
bosoms the  seeking,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  a 
peremptory  demand    of  God,  It   should  give   us  no 

sarily  any  such  thing  (i  Tim.  i.  2,  Ti.  i.  2,  iii.  15);  second,  that 
fighting  the  good  fight  of  faiih  (i  Tim.  vi.  12,  see  Greek),  is  a  cor- 
responding sentence  (see  also  2  Tim.  iv.  7);  and,  thirdly,  that  this 
subjective  sense  is  a  much  more  salutary  one  than  the  blast  on  the 
bugle-horn  of  a  vain  sectarianism. 


Chap.  IX.]  Faith,  171 

trouble  to  see  that  we  are  justified,  or  sanctified,  or 
made  better  (for  to  Augustine  they  were  the  same) 
by  means  <?/ faith,  than  that  we  are  made  better  by 
works  (Jas.  i.  25),  or,  to  come  into  commoner  speech, 
that  we  are  improved  by  holy  living.  We  are  not 
troubled,  therefore,  by  such  texts  as  ''  Righteous- 
ness of  God,  by  means  of  faith  in  Jesus  Christ" 
(Rom.  iii.  22),  or  this  more  elaborate  one,  '*  Not 
mine  own  righteousness  which  is  out  of  {tit)  law 
(that  is,  which  comes  of  being  talked  to  or  thundered 
at — see  14th  chapter),  ''  but  that  which  is  by  means 
of  {did)  faith  in  Christ,  the  righteousness  which  is 
out  of  {in)  God  upon  [eni  i.  e.,  supervening  upon) 
faith  (Phil.  iii.  9). 

If  a  man  wishes  to  be  saved,  he  must  become  bet- 
ter. If  he  wishes  to  become  better,  he  must  try.  If 
he  wishes  to  try,  he  must  use  the  essential  means. 
One  absolutely  essential  means  is  the  help  of  the 
Almighty.  If  he  wishes  the  help  of  the  Almighty, 
he  must  ask  for  it.  If  he  wishes  to  continue  to  ask, 
he  must  ask  the  help  of  the  Almighty  that  he  may 
continue  asking  (Ps.  cxix.  10,  Zach.  xii.  10).  This 
asking  of  God  is  the  very  sense  and  substance  of 
that  convenient  word  faitJi.  And  when  it  has 
been  efficiently  listened  to,  it  becomes  saving 
faith.  And  as  that  word  ''saving  faith"  is  not  in 
the  Bible,  what  a  pity  we  have  not  coined  the  like 
of  it ;  for  "  saving  hope  "  (Rom.  viii.  24),  and  ''  saving 
love"  (Jas.  i.  12),  and  ''saving  works"  (Rom  ii.  13), 
and  ''saving  alms-deeds"  (Matt.  vii.  24).  and  "sav- 
ing penitence    or  patience  "   (Matt.  x.    22),    would 


172  The  God-Man.  [Book  IV. 

steady  the  ship,  and  hold  up  the  point,  which 
ought  to  be  revived  in  our  modern  church,  that  it  is 
really  light  that  saves  us  (2  Cor.  iv.  6,  Jo.  xvii.  3, 
Actsxxvi.  18),  and  that  the  breaking  in  of  moral 
light,  which,  differently  stated,  is  but  the  making 
better  of  a  man's  conscience,  is  the  very  substance 
of  a  new  birth,  and  that  which  dates  the  *'  saving  "- 
ness  of  hope  and  love  and  of  any  other  ''saving" 
thing,  not  omitting,  of  course,  faith  or  trust,  which, 
on  account  of  its  honoring  God,  is  the  second  only 
to  light  as  the  queen  of  all  our  betterness. 


CHAPTER  X. 

JUSTIFICATION   BY   FAITH. 

We  become  possessed  of  certain  family  training, 
and  refuse  to  answer  any  objections.  There  is  no 
palsy  like  that  of  a  religious  prepossession. 

The  differentia  of  saving  faith  seems  demonstrably 
moral,  from  the  admission  of  orthodox  men  that 
saving  faith  is  the  result  of  regeneration.  If  regene- 
ration can  be  nothing  possibly  but  the  renewal  of 
the  conscience,  what  can  the  result  of  a  renewed 
conscience  be  but  the  faith  of  a  renewed  conscience, 
that  is  a  new  moral  look,  on  the  one  side  into  the 
loveliness  of  Christ,  and  on  the  other  into  my  own 
wickedness?  and  how  startling  the  folly  of  saying 
that  faith  is  of  a  renewed  conscience,  and  then,  as 
the  Reformed  believe,  that  a  new  conscience,  or 
good  works,   or  holy  living,  or  form^al  sanctification 


Chap.  X.]        Jitstification  by  Faith.  i  ^^i 

(for  all  these  are  tautologous),  are  the  effects  of 
faith ! 

It  is  a  shame  to  abide  fast  by  things  in  the  face  of 
such  entire  refutal. 

A  kindred  perseverance  occurs  in  respect  to  justi- 
fication. It  may  be  said,  No  trace  of  the  Reformed 
account  of  it  can  be  found  in  history.  The  very 
men  who  reverently  trace  a  church,  and  suppose 
millions  of  good  people  from  now  back  to  the 
Redeemer,  nay,  pick  out  great  saints  and  warm 
counsellors,  like  Augustine,  and  assert  scores  of 
them  from  century  to  century  back  all  the  way  from 
this  spot  to  the  fishing  boats  on  Gennesaret,  yet, 
when  they  are  distinctly  told  that  their  ''justifi- 
cation "  is  unknown  in  that  multitude,  and  is  denied, 
as  far  as  it  could  be  denied,  by  Augustine,  who  had 
never  heard  of  it,  go  on  in  blank  headvvay  all  the 
same,  and  do  not  peep  or  mutter  under  such  an 
argument. 

Then,  too,  if  men  scorn  authority,  and  call  all  this 
tradition,  and  appeal  to  Scripture,  a  direct  appeal  to 
Scripture  seems  just  as  nugatory. 

What  single  Scripture  can  there  be  for  sundering 
justification  from  sanctification  ? 

Justification,  according  to  the  Reformed,  is  the 
imputing  of  Christ's  righteousness  to  us  as  our  per- 
petual merit  and  the  ground  of  our  acceptance. 
We  have  already  cried  out  that  it  was  like  seaman- 
ship that  would  set  a  sail  so  as  completely  to  cover 
another  and  a  better.  It  is  like  filling  a  goblet 
twice.     If  I  am   redeemed,   it  amounts  to  nothing 


1 74  The  God-Man,  [Book  IV. 

unless  I  am  rid  of  the  curse ;  and  as  the  heavier 
curse  is  mine  iniquity,  I  must  be  rid  of  that,  that  is, 
I  must  be  made  righteous,  before  I  have  drunk  to 
the  bottom  the  cup  of  my  deliverance.  Now,  if  I 
am  delivered  from  sin,  where  do  I  need  that  other 
justification  ?  Pardoned  to  the  very  last,  and  then 
perfected,  where  does  other  merit  fit  in  ?  Luther's 
''  merit''  has  some  poisons  greater  than  the  poisons 
of  the  Pope,  because  it  palsies  our  own  righteous- 
ness, and  I  mean  by  that  hides  a  mass  of  Scripture 
that  implies  our  own  sanctification. 

The  evil  is  increased  when  faith  comes  in  to  play 
a  part.  We  are  justified  by  faith,  and  the  fancy  is, 
not  that  we  are  "  purified  by  faith,"  as  is  elsewhere 
adduced  (Acts  xv.  9),  but  that  two  things  must  be 
imagined  ;  first,  that  Christ's  merit  is  to  be  debited  to 
us,  and,  second,  that  that  great  transfer  happens  upon 
the  act  that  I  call  believing;  and  that  that  believing 
is  not  the  faith  of  the  older  centuries,  a  great  heart- 
lisht,  as  the  Fathers  described  it  *'  infused  with 
charity,"  but  a  mere  belief,  that  is,  a  faith  the  starker 
the  better,  a  lumen  siccus,  a  sheer  intellectual  accept- 
ance (Hodge,  Syst.  TheoL,  iii.,  p.  95),  a  reasoned 
trust  '  upon  a  described  and  made  intelligible 
Redeemer. 

Have  we  not  a  right,  if  this  doctrine  is  a  doctrine 
of  the  Reformed,  that  they  shall  eitlier  show  it  to 
us  from  the  past,  or  else  give  us  the  credit  of  the 
great  consensus  of  believers ;  and  if  they  despise 
this  as  human  tradition,  may  we  not  appeal  to 
Scripture  ?     May  we  not  have  an  arena  somewhere  ? 


Chap.  X.]        JzLstificatioii  by  Faith,  1 75 

And  may  we  not  now  press  one  argument  and  demand 
an  actual  answ^er, — that  there  is  nothing  said  about 
justification  by  faith  that  is  not  said  about  sanctifica- 
tion  by  faith,  and,  therefore,  that  it  is  impossible  to 
get  a  knife-blade  of  distinction  between  the  two, 
and,  in  default  of  any  divine  expositor,  to  make 
sanctification  subjective  and  justification  forensic, 
when  the  same  relation  to  faith  is  expressed  in  both 
of  them? 

We  are  prepared  to  show  this  by  the  discussion 
of  the  previous  chapter. 

Paul  says.  We  are  sanctified  by  faith  (Acts  xxvi. 
18),  and  that  we  are  "  justified  by  faith  "  (Rom.  iii. 
28),  and  the  relation  of  faith  is  expressed  by  the 
same  case  of  the  noun,  viz.,  the  material  Dative, 
Nor  is  this  an  accidental  similarity,  for  we  are  said 
also  to  be  purified  by  faith  (Acts  xv.  9),  and  to  have 
access  by  faith  into  grace  (Rom.  v.  2),  all  of  which, 
as  they  are  precisely  in  the  same  form,  must  have 
reasons  exterior  to  themselves  if  they  are  to  be  un- 
derstood as  any  different. 

Descending  to  the  prepositions,  Christ  is  said  to 
be  justified  in  (fV)  the  Spirit  (i  Tim.  iii.  16),  which 
itself  can  hardly  bear  a  forensic  signification  ;  but 
then  it  is  associated  with  living  in  faith  (Gal.  ii.  20), 
standing  in  faith  (i  Cor.  xvi.  13),  loving  us  in  faith 
(Ti.  iii.  15),  asking  in  faith  (Ja.  i.  6),  all  of  which 
have  the  preposition  iv.  The  stress  of  our  de- 
monstration is  that  it  is  impossible  to  make  four  of 
these  subjective,  and  the  other  not  so,  without  a 
gross  leap  in  the  polemic,   or  else  some  ab  extra 


1 76  The  God- Man.  [Book  IV. 

cause,  which  is  just  what  we  are  begging  to  hear 
from  as  against  the  more  ancient  exposition.  A 
stronger  sentence,  "Ye  are  waslied,  ye  are  sanctified, 
ye  are  justified  by  (fV)  the  Spirit  of  our  God" 
(i  Cor.  vi.  11),  seems  to  be  itself  a  demonstration. 
Think  of  filching  out  of  a  single  Scripture,  and  that 
indistinguishable  in  its  aim,  and  making  part  forensic 
and  the  remainder  personal. 

Then  hi.  Paul  justifies  us  hi  (Rom.  v.  i),  and 
gives  us  a  life  hi  (Rom.  i.  17).  We  have  a  right- 
eousness hi  (Rom.  X.  6),  and  live  hi  (Heb.  x.  38). 

And  so  of  did  (Rom.  iii.  30;  Eph.  iii.  12,  17;  2 
Tim.  iii.  15  ;  2  Cor.  v). 

The  difference,  it  may  be  boldly  said,  is  in  the 
verb.  And  yet  this  hardly.  NsKpoGo  means  to  make 
v6Hp6?{dead).  'A^iogd means  to  make  aB,io^ {zvorthy). 
So  dinaiocjo,  like  all  verbs  in  ood,  would  mean  what  ? 
Certainly  not  rectus  in  the  Lutheran  idea,  for  there 
is  nothing  like  it  in  heaven  or  earth.  It  is  an  abso- 
lute coinage  in  recent  literature.  Say  what  we  will 
about  making  righteous  not  being  an  idea  in  classic 
speech.  Making  holy  (dyid^co)  does  not  occur 
at  all.  The  pagans  had  no  thought  of  making  each 
other  righteous.  But  making  each  other  out  to  be 
righteous  was  of  use  enough.  And  whether  it  was 
done  in  court,  or  whether  it  was  done  in  the  pre- 
tences of  human  speech,  it  meant  a  downright 
making  righteous,  whether  declaring  so  in  court,  or 
pretending  so  in  private,  this  thought  being  not  at  all 
the  thought  of  the  Lutheran  imputation.  AiKaioao, 
therefore,  means  either  a  confessed  enrighteousment, 


Chap.  X.]        Justification  by  Faith.  \jy 

as  in  the  cases  we  have  mentioned  (Dan.  xii.  3  ;  i 
Cor.  vi.  11),  or  the  same  thing  (though  not  confessed 
by  the  Reformed),  viz.,  a  partial  and  putative  jnak- 
ing  right eoics,  of  the  same  nature  and  measure  as 
under  the  other  term,  sanctification. 

Once  more :  the  Reformed  will  say  that  justifica- 
tion, unlike  sanctification,  stands  in  a  per  contra 
attitude  to  being  condemned  (Rom.  iv.  6,  8  ;  v.  16; 
viii.  34).  This  tumbles  at  a  touch.  So  far  is  this  from 
being  a  discrepance  that  sanctification  is  the  oftener 
in  being  mingled  with  forensic  mediation.  Paul 
speaks  of  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats  sanctifying, 
and  then,  immediately  after,  of  the  blood  of  Christ 
purging  our  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve 
the  living  God  (Heb.  ix.  13,  14).  "•  They  overcame 
him  by  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  "  (Rev.  xii.  i  [).  We 
are  indeed  said  to  be  "  justified  by  his  blood " 
(Rom.  V.  9),  but  with  singular  consentaneousness 
also,  we  are  said  to  be  sanctified  by  his  blood  (Heb. 
xiii.  12).  Life  and  ransom  are  so  entwined  that  we 
are  said  to  be  ''  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience  " 
(Heb.  X.  22) ;  we  are  said  to  be  washed  from  our 
sins  in  His  own  blood  (Rev.  i.  5) ;  sin  is  said  to  be 
condemnation  (Jude  4) ;  sanctification  of  the  Spirit 
is  said  to  be  '*  unto  obedience  and  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ  "  (i  Pet.  i.  2) ;  and,  strongest 
of  all,  with  an  emphasis  never  uttered  of  justification, 
we  are  assured  that  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  His 
Son,  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin  "  (i   Jo.  i.  7). 

Justification,  therefore,  as  an  over-lapping  and 
not-needed  imputation  from  Christ,  is  an  invention 


1 78  The   God-Man,  [Book  IV. 

of  the  Reformed,  and  when  it  emasculates  beheving, 
and  seduces  it  out  of  its  moral  and  distinctively 
gracious  state,  it  is  a  masterpiece  of  mischief.  It 
hides  no  end  of  Scriptures.  It  is  the  mother  of 
Antinomian  hope.  It  furthers  an  indolent  trust. 
And  that  Delphic  equivoque  of  a  "■  standing  or  falling 
Church,"  may  well  be  realized  by  it,  and,  like  a  sap 
under  an  ancient  building,  it  may  pull  down  at  last 
our  Protestant  system  of  religion. 

Justification  by  faith  is  sanctification.  Sanctifica- 
tion  is  said  to  be  by  faith,  just  as  it  may  be  said  to 
be  in^  by,  or  out  of,  or,  plainest  of  all,  in  tJic  shape  of 
(material  Dative)  any  holiness.  Faith  is  only  one  of 
the  things  by  which  we  are  sanctified  or  justified. 
And  yet  it  is  a  very  striking  thing ;  for  it  began  in 
common  faith;  as  common  faith  it  brought  us  to  our 
knees ;  that  seeking  which  is  our  grandest  human 
obligation,  was  the  first  thing  light  shone  upon,  and 
when  God's  moral  light  shone  upon  our  seeking,  it 
shone  upon  all  other  graces ;  but  still  upon  our 
seeking,  as  required  ;  and,  therefore,  faith  may  reason- 
ably be  noticed  first  and  oftenest  as  the  **  substance  " 
of  our  cleansing  (Heb.  xi.  i). 

CHAPTER  XI. 

PRAYER. 

I.  Prayer  is  the  most  natural  form  of  seeking.  If 
we  may  say,  therefore,  in  a  way  to  be  understood, 
that  wx  are  justified  hy  seeking,  eminently  may  we  be 
justified  by   prayer.     A  man    may  be  justified    by 


Chap.  XL]  Prayer.  1 79 

prayer  in  two  particulars.  He  may  be  justified  in 
the  shape  of  prayer  {material  Dative^,  because 
prayer,  if  genuine,  is  itself  a  righteousness  ;  and  he 
may  be  justified  out  of  (fu)  or  dy  means  of  (dia) 
prayer,  inasmuch  as  prayer  mightily  promotes  addi- 
tional urgencies  of  prayer,  and,  indeed,  actually  is 
answered  in  additional  degrees  of  righteousness. 

II.  Righteousness  being  God's  highest  good,  he  is 
always  ready  to  answer  prayers  for  it,  and,  therefore, 
prayers  for  righteousness,  if  genuine,  are  always 
answered.  Righteousness,  being  our  highest  good, 
distrains  every  other  form  of  prayer.  We  are  taught 
to  pray  for  other  things  (Phil.  iv.  6),  but  always  re- 
servedly and  confidingly  (Lu.  xxii.  42 ;  I  Jo.  v.  14). 
Righteousness  is  the  great  prayer  that  swallows  up 
every  other.  And  often  when  we  pray  for  righteous- 
ness, we  are  praying  for  agony  and  grief,  and  every 
other  prayer  may  be  defeated  or  changed  the  more 
to  justify  us. 

III.  Justification,  which  is  understood,  of  course, 
by  this  time  as  of  a  man's  being  made  holy,  is 
simple  in  another  particular,  viz.,  that  it  is  super- 
natural. I  can  pray  for  the  supernatural  intelli- 
gently, for  I  understand  that  I  am  not  raising  a 
mystery  about  the  laws  of  nature.  But  if  I  pray  for 
health,  what  then  ?  If  my  daughter  is  dying,  and  I 
boldly  ask  a  miracle  (Matt.  ix.  18),  that  of  course. 
But  if  in  these  modern  periods  I  kneel  at  my 
daughter's  bedside,  what  do  I  ask?  It  is  simple  if  I 
ask  piety,  for  that  is  above  nature  ;  but  if  I    ask  re- 

I  am   not  dreaming;  of  a  miracle  ;  but   how 


l8o  The  God-Man.  [Book  IV. 

can  the  dying  be  turned  back  when  the  laws  of 
nature  have  them  fuUy  in  their  keep,  and  my 
daughter  would  live  or  die  under  their  settled 
ministry  ? 

Why  should  I  pray  for  rain  any  more  than  for  an 
eclipse  ? 

The  answers  may  be  various :  we  prefer  one 
greatly  above  any  other.  In  the  first  place,  I 
should  pray  for  other  things  than  justification, 
because  I  am  commanded  to  (Matt.  vi.  ii).  The 
prayer  is  my  part.  The  fulfilment  belongs  to  the 
Almighty.  Whatever  be  the  key  to  the  mystery, 
that  is  God's  matter,  not  mine. 

In  the  second  place,  grace  was  settled  from  eter- 
nity. If  I  pray  for  it,  I  pray  for  that  which  is  as 
much  settled  as  the  rain.  Though,  therefore,  grace 
be  supernatural,  why  is  not  the  difficulty  the  same  ? 
And  if  it  be  a  sufficient  answer  that  the  prayer  was 
also  settled,  why  may  not  that  be  true  of  nature  ? 
And  if  I  pray  for  showers,  why  may  not  an  iron 
drought  be  relaxed  by  the  laws  of  nature,  and  yet 
by  the  laws  of  prayer,  the  atmosphere  and  the 
mercy-seat  having  been  arranged  in  consonance 
before  the  world  began  ? 

But,  in  the  third  place  (and  here  comes  in  our 
own  preference  and  faith),  we  do  invoke  the  super- 
natural. A  miracle  is  a  GrjfAEioVy  a  thing  to  be  wit- 
nessed, an  open  ocular  demonstration.  Why  sup- 
pose all  of  that  character?  If  God  saddles  Himself 
with  laws,  and  orders  a  nature  that  men  may  trust 
it,  and  yet  it  is  but  the  method  of  His  working,  why 


Chap.  XII.]  The  Law,  i8i 

may  He  not  alter  it  in  a  way  that  is  not  a  '*  sign  " 
{(jrffxeiov)}  Why  may  He  not  have  meddled  yes- 
terday, and  altered  the  whirl  of  an  East-bound, 
unhappy  tempest  ?  Why  could  not  my  daughter 
mend  under  the  direct  hand  of  the  King  ?  To 
believe  in  a  miracle  (and  Heaven  is  a  miracle,  and 
Christ  is  not  Christ  at  all  without  a  miracle)  do  I  not 
give  up  other  doubt  ?  If  the  order  of  nature  may 
be  changed,  why  not  secretly  ?  The  age  of  miracles 
being  past,  I  count  them  GijfASiay  that  is  miraada, 
and  that  leaves  me  abundant  space  to  believe  in 
what  is  secret.  I  am  quite  ready  to  imagine  that  a 
comet  might  have  struck  our  world  a  thousand  years 
ago,  were  it  not  for  the  secret  motion  of  the  arm  of 
Heaven. 

All  prayer,  for  aught  I  know,  is  for  the  supernat- 
ural. All  prayer,  if  righteous,  I  know  is  supernat- 
ural. And  all  prayer,  even  if  for  earthly  things,  is 
supernaturally  blessed,  justifyingly  in  itself,  and, 
through  its  own  enrighteousment  throughout  all 
our  being. 

CHAPTER  XII. 

THE    LAW. 

There  is  a  verb  in  the  Hebrew,  meaning  in  the 
Hiphil  to  throw,  which  has  given  birth,  as  we  have 
seen,  to  a  noun,  which  is  the  noun  (or  law  all  through 
the  Old  Testament  revelation.  The  outcome  of  so 
theologic  a  term,  from  just  such  an  origin  seems,  as 
we  have  said,  fanciful.     But  I  am  riding  on  the  road. 


1 82  The  God-Mail.  [Book  IV. 

and  ask  my  way.  My  informant  throws  up  his 
hand.  That  is  his  first  gesture  in  doing  as  I  have 
begged.  That  thought  cleaves  to  the  vocable  in 
many  an  inspired  sentence.  When  I  am  com- 
manded to  forget  not  the  law  of  my  mother  (Prov. 
i.  8),  it  has  less  color  of  ordinary  laiv  than  of  the 
old  thought,  direction.  When  I  am  told  that  "  the 
law  of  thy  mouth  is  better,  etc.,"  (Ps.  cxix.  72),  or 
that  "  in  her  tongue  (that  is,  the  tongue  of  the 
Church),  is  the  law  of  kindness "  (Prov.  xxxi.  26), 
we  easily  work  our  way  back  to  the  old  idea. 

The  law,  in  this  sense  of  direction^  is  vitally 
necessary  in  our  thought  of  the  gospel.  How  can  I 
seek  unless  some  one  tells  me  ?  Seeking  being  the 
very  substance  of  faith  and  the  very  secret  of  sal- 
vation, I  begin  to  understand  why  I  am  said  to  be 
regenerated  by  the  truth.  If  regeneration  be  in 
the  very  act  of  seeking,  my  seeking  must  be  directed, 
and  therefore  it  is  that  seeking  and  direction  and 
regeneration  come  all  together. 

The  facts  explain  another  thing.  There  is  a  prev- 
alent idea  that  the  law  is  the  ten  commandments. 
It  is  infinitely  more  than  this.  The  law,  as  the 
direction  of  the  sinner,  includes  all  that  he  is  obliged 
to  know.  It  is  marvelously  lost  to  sight,  that  the 
law,  chiefest  and  foremost  among  its  precepts, 
includes  the  gospel.  What  was  Moses  doing  upon 
Sinai  ?  The  least  part  of  his  time  receiving  the 
decalogue.  He  loads  his  books  with  sacrifices. 
What  is  the  fiercest  threatening?  That  against 
unbelief?     What  is  the  most  damnable  wickedness? 


Chap.  XII.]  The  Law.  183 

Let  Christ  answer  !  ^'  If  I  had  not  come  and 
spoken  unto  them,  they  had  not  had  sin."  The 
great  duty  of  the  sinner  being  to  be  saved,  and 
the  great  method  of  salvation  being  to  seek,  and 
the  great  need  in  seeking  being  to  know  the  way, 
direction  in  the  way  of  life  becomes  the  leading  law 
of  the  Almighty,  and  is  thundered  out  of  Sinai  as 
really  more  fierce  and  more  searching  than  any- 
thing beside. 

The  law,  therefore,  is  all  that  direction  for  the 
sinner  which  is  to  lead  him  in  the  way  of  life.  The 
ten  commandments  are  a  part  of  it.  If  we  are  care- 
ful to  explain,  they  may  be  the  whole.  If  I  am  to 
obey  the  decalogue,  I  must  follow  Christ.  Faith 
becomes  a  mighty  inference,  and  prayer  is  thundered 
out  as  a  command.  And  if  I  distil  the  ten  pre- 
cepts until  they  are  reduced  to  two,  eminently  they 
include  faith  ;  for  I  cannot  love  my  Maker  without 
getting  back  to  Him,  and  I  cannot  get  back  to  Him 
without  faith.  Directions  for  faith  are,  therefore, 
the  sternest  statutes,  and  are  to  be  expounded 
along  with  all  those  Scriptures  where  avc  are  said  to 
be  sanctified  by  the  truth  (Jo.  xvii.  19),  w^here  we 
hear  of  ''  the  w^ashing  of  water  by  the  word  "  (Eph. 
v.  26),  where  we  are  said  to  ''  be  clean  through  the 
word  "  (Jo.  XV.  3),  wdiere  we  are  said  to  "receive  with 
meekness  the  engrafted  w^ord  "  (Jas.  i.  21),  and,  there, 
fore,  wdiere  we  are  threatened,  ''  He  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  damned  "  (Mar.  xvi.  16),  "  be  ye  doers 
of  the  word  and  not  hearers  only  "  (Jas.  i.  22),  and 
w^here    the   w^orst    Sinai   imprecation    is   explained, 


r84  The  God-Man,  [Book  IV. 

''The  unbelieving  and  abominable  shall  have  their 
part,  etc."  (Rev.  xxi.  8),  for  **  the  word  preached 
did  not  profit  them,  not  being  mixed  with  faith  in 
them  that  heard  it  "  (Heb.  iv.  2). 

The  gospel,  in  a  certain  sense,  includes  the  law, 
but  the  law,  the  fiercest  and  most  perilous,  pro- 
claims the  gospel. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  WORKS   OF   THE  LAW. 

There  are  thirteen  instances  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment where  "  works  "  are  spoken  of  in  connection 
with  a  genitive,  and  in  every  one  of  them  the  sense 
is  similar.  This  is  a  perfect  generalization.  We 
will  recite  it  again.  '' Works  of  darkness"  (Eph. 
v.  11)  are  works  which  we  are  moved  to  by  darkness. 
"Works  of  God"  (Jo.  ix.  3),  ''works  of  the  Devil" 
(i  Jo.  iii.  8),  "works  of  Christ"  (Matt.  xi.  2), 
"works  of  the  flesh  "  (Gal.  v.  19),  are  works  which 
w^e  are  moved  to  by  these  several  agencies ;  and 
then,  without  quotation,  all  the  rest  of  the  cases, — of 
our  fathers,  of  our  father  the  Devil,  of  Abraham,  of 
our  hands,  of  the  body,  of  the  Nicolaitans,  of  the 
old  man,  are  not  works  enjoined  by  all  these  differ- 
ent things,  but  works  induced  or  done  by  them. 
How  monstrous  it  is,  after  a  list  like  that,  to  single 
out  one,  and,  for  a  polemic  purpose,  make  it  entirely 
different.  If  "  works  of  the  flesh  "  mean  works  that 
are  induced  by  the  flesh,  "  works  of  the  law  "  must 
mean  works   induced   by  the  law.     And   we  under- 


Chap.  XIII.]    71ie  Works  of  the  Law,  185 

stand  at  once,  that  grace  being  attained  by  seeking, 
and  seeking  being  set  on  foot  by  direction,  never- 
theless it  would  never  be  set  on  foot  except  by 
something  more  than  direction.  The  direction 
might  be  thundered  from  Sinai,  and  read  in  the 
synagogues  of  Jewry,  and  preached  from  the  pulpits 
of  Christ,  but  it  must  come  "  not  in  word  only,  but  in 
power  "  (i  Cor.  iv.  20),  and  there  flashes  upon  us  a 
full  exegesis  of  the  text,  ''By  the  works  of  the  law 
shall  no  flesh  be  made  righteous  "  (Gal.  ii.  16).  Paul 
grows  briefer  often,  and  leaves  off  the  expression 
"of  the  law  "(Rom.  iv.  2),  having  said  enough  in 
other  passages  thoroughly  to  explain  his  meaning 
(Gal.  iii.  2,  5),  but  in  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians  he 
sets  all  right, — ''  Knowing  that  a  man  is  not  justified 
by  the  works  of  the  law,  EXCEPT  (f^r////,  E.  V.  "  but," 
Re.  "  save")  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ"  (Gal.  ii.  16), 
meaning,  not  that  we  are  not  sanctified  by  works  ; 
of  course  we  are;  but  that  we  are  not  sanctified  by 
the  works  that  the  mere  law  stirs  up,  whether  on 
Sinai  or  Calvary,  but  "by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ," 
that  is,  by  that  simple  seeking  which  must  be  stirred 
as  well  as  listened  to  by  the  God  that  saves  us. 

"Works  of  the  law,"  therefore,  are  works  that 
could  be  produced  in  a  human  soul  by  simply 
preaching  to  it. 


1 86  The  God-Man.  [Book  IV. 


CHAPTER   XIV. 

THE    WEAKNESS    OF     THE    LAW. 

It  will  be  seen  that  we  have  been  teaching  now 
for  pages  back  five  very  distinct  things.  First,  that 
to  be  righteous  in  Heaven,  we  must  begin  to  be 
less  sinful  now,  and  this  less  sinfulness  now  is  called 
by  way  of  brevity,  righteousness,  though  there  is 
"  no  just  man  upon  earth  that  doeth  good  and  sin- 
neth  not."  Second,  that,  as  there  is  a  rule  in 
Heaven  making  sin  incurable,  that  is,  denouncing 
upon  it  the  vengeance  of  ''death,"  Christ  lifted 
this  curse,  and  gave  to  man  a  chance  which  the 
devils  did  not  possess.  Third,  that  in  order  to  be 
better,  that  is,  to  become  less  sinful,  a  means  has 
been  ordained  of  betterment,  viz.,  that  we  seek 
God.  Fourth,  that,  in  order  to  seek  him,  that 
means  must  be  revealed  ;  we  must  have  a  law,  or, 
tracing  it  back  to  its  root,  we  must  have  directio7t ; 
for,  "  How  can  we  call  on  Him  of  whom  we  have 
not  heard?"  (Rom.  x.  14),  and  this  law  must  be 
built  on  the  cross,  and  must  contain  all  the  promises 
and  austerities  of  the  gospel.  Fifth,  that  this  gos- 
pel is  weak.  *'  It  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salva- 
tion "  (Rom.  i.  16),  but  perhaps  there  is  no  verse  in 
the  language  that  explains  more  distinctly  what  the 
weakness  of  the  gospel  is. 

The  Gospel  includes  everything.  When  God  ap- 
peared on  Sinai,  it  would  have  been  idle  to  proclaim 
a  law,  unless  it  was  replete  with   a  full  redemption. 


Chap.  XIV.]       Weakness  of  the  Lazu.  187 

When  God  commanded,  Do  this  and  thou  shalt  live  ! 
he  crowded  into  the  hands  of  the  Law-giver  at  the  same 
time  sacrifices  and  types.  Sinai  preached  the  gospel, 
and  if  we  take,  in  our  time,  a  gospel  sanctuary,  it  echoes 
the  same  law.  It  writes  it  in  clearer  letters,  but  its 
genus  is  the  same.  We  cannot  be  too  careful  to  re- 
member that  Sinai  had  everything  in  it  generically 
of  a  gospel  sermon,  and  now,  to  come  at  once  to  our 
thought,  that  our  gospel  sermons  are  weak  precisely 
like  Sinai. 

Nothing  will  convert  a  sinner  but  the  power  of  his 
Creator.  He  may  do  it  by  a  plan  ;  He  may  do  it 
with  reserve ;  He  may  be  forced  not  to  do  it  when 
He  would  gladly  pity  ;  nothing  will  persuade  us  to 
suppose  that  He  lost  Satan  without  a  need  ;  yet, 
still,  the  power  to  convert  is  with  the  Almighty. 
Nothing  else  will  accomplish  it.  "  Though  thou  bray 
a  fool  in  a  mortar  among  wheat  with  a  pestle,  yet 
will  not  his  foolishness  depart  from  him "  (Prov. 
xxvii.  22).  And  Gabriel,  unless  we  utterly  mistake, 
might  have  been  preached  to  by  all  the  choirs,  un- 
less God,  through  the  universal  age,  lifted  him  and 
kept  him  through  his  own  salvation. 

No  man  can  be  saved,  therefore,  unless  he  seek  ; 
no  man  can  seek  without  a  law  ;  no  man  need  desire 
a  law  unless  it  consists  of  and  depones  a  total  gos- 
pel ;  and  yet  no  man  will  be  in  heaven  that  had  not 
more  than  law,  and  hosts  will  be  in  hell  on  whom 
our  modern  Sinais  have  thundered  with  the  richest 
gospel. 

The  gospel,  then,  ''is  the  power"  (Rom.   i.   16), 


1 88  The   God-Ma7i.  [Book  IV. 

so  says  Paul,  but  it  is  utterly  false  and  wicked,  if  he 
went  no  farther.  The  gospel  is  utterly  in  vain  with- 
out the  Almighty.  Paul  distinctly  tells  us  so. 
"  For  what  the  law  could  not  do  in  that  it  was  weak 
through  the  flesh,  God,  sending  His  own  Son  in  the 
likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin,  condemned  sin 
in  the  flesh,  that  the  righteousness  of  the  law  might 
be  fulfilled  in  us  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh  but 
after  the  Spirit "  (Rom.  viii.  4).  The  gospel  is  the 
power,  but  it  is  *'  the  power  of  God."  It  has  no 
power  without  the  Spirit.  "  The  righteousness  of 
the  law  "  is  all  we  want,  but  it  can  never  be  engen- 
dered by  the  law  itself.  The  lost  traveler  must  have 
more  than  the  passer  by  to  throw  up  his  hand.  He 
must  have  strength  to  follow,  as  well  as  the  finger- 
guide  for  the  direction  of  his  journey,  and,  therefore, 
Paul  completes  his  sentence  with  admirable  clear- 
ness. "  It  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation,"  and 
just  in  that  shape  in  which  men  take  the  direction, 
viz.,  in  that  dawning  ''  righteousness  of  the  law  " 
which  consists  in  faith — "  the  power  of  God  unto 
salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth." 

CHAPTER  XV. 

THE   TWO    COVENANTS. 

We  warn  our  readers  that  we  are  treading  upon 
ground  in  which  there  are  no  shoe-prints  but  of  our 
own  feet.  Justification  by  faith  was  clear  enough 
among  the  fathers,  but  the  Covenants  seem  to  have 
been  footballs  always.     It  is  whimsical,  by  any  test, 


Chap.  XV.]        The   Two  Covenants.  189 

how  they  have  been  translated  '*  testaments,"  and 
then  made  titles  for  the  Bible,  as  though  there  were 
a  different  inheritance  under  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament revelations.  The  Covenants  are  nothing  but 
an  expression  for  the  weakness  of  the  law  (Jer. 
xxxi.  32),  that  is,  as  we  have  explained  it,  the 
impotency  of  the  gospel,  as  standing  over  against 
what  it  becomes  when  it  becomes  the  power  of  the 
Almighty  {ib.  v.  33).  The  Old  Covenant  is  the 
whole  gospel  or  law  without  the  application  of  it  to 
men  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  New  Covenant  is  the 
same,  with  this  last  thing  added.  The  proof  of  such 
a  sense  is  complete. 

How  monstrous  that  through  all  the  age  these 
Covenants  have  been  wrestled  with  to  so  little  pur- 
pose. Men  have  talked  about  a  "  Covenant  of 
Works."  What,  since  Adam,  has  been  the  room  for 
such  a  covenant  ?  We  talk  constantly  of  an  "  Old 
Dispensation."  There  was,  indeed,  a  period  of 
shadows,  but  the  thing  shadowed  forth  was  the  same 
always.  Job  got  to  heaven  by  the  same  covenant 
as  Fenelon.  The  Old  Covenant  could  never  save 
us  ;  the  New  Covenant  can  ;  and  this  is  the  simple 
difference  :  the  Old  Covenant  is  the  law,  with  all  its 
buttresses  of  redemption,  and  quite  able  to  save  us 
if  we  would  hear  it ;  the  New  Covenant  is  precisely 
the  same  thing,  except  as  we  are  induced  to  hear  it 
by  the  very  grace  that  has  been  purchased.  Jere- 
miah and  Paul  both  make  this  certain,  and  it  is  a 
wonder  that  so  plain  a  gloss  should  be  so  little  taken 
notice  of  in  so  small  a  circle  of  intimations. 


1 90  The  God-Man,  [Book  iv. 

"This  is  my  covenant  that  I  will  make  after  those 
days,"  says  Jeremiah,  and  then,  in  the  plainest  lan- 
guage, tells  us  what  this  ''new"  (Jer.  xxxi.  31)  or 
after  covenant  is  definitely  to  be  ;  ''  not  according 
to  the  covenant  that  T  made  with  their  fathers;" 
that  is  the  law  ;  that  is  the  gospel ;  that  is  the 
whole  blessed  call  and  foundation  for  heaven  ;  that 
is  the  Old  Covenant,  *'  which  my  covenant  they 
brake,"  just  as  we  all  do  if  there  be  no  other  and  no 
better;  but  "  this  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make, 
I  will  put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts,  and  write  it 
in  their  hearts,  and  will  be  their*God,  and  they  shall 
be  my  people  "  (Jer.  xxxi.  32,  33). 

The  apostles  quote  this  language,  and  more  than 
once  (Heb.  viii.  8-12,  x.  16,  17).  Paul  sets  it 
beyond  question,  for  he  says,  *'  These  are  the  two 
covenants,  the  one  from  the  Mount  Sinai  which  gen- 
dereth  to  bondage,  the  other  the  upper  Jerusalem  " 
(Gal.  iv.  24,  26).  The  figures  are  complete.  Sinai, 
left  to  itself,  just  like  '^Jerusalem  which  is  noiv  " 
(v.  25)  with  all  its  pulpits,  can  beget  us  only  to 
bondage  ;  but  Jerusalem  which  answers  to  Christ's 
words  to  Nicodemus  when  He  required  that  we 
should  be  born  from  above,  that  Jerusalem  which 
John  saw,  and  which  he  described  as  "  coming  down 
from  God  out  of  heaven  "  (Rev.  xxi.  10) ;  that  ''  Jeru- 
salem which  is  free"  (Gal.  iv.  26),  and  that  realizes 
the  sentence,  ''  Paul  may  plant  and  Apollos  water, 
but  God  only  giveth  the  increase  "  (see  i  Cor.  iii.  6),  is 
the  only  work  of  the  "  New  Covenant,"  and  the  only 
fruitful  spouse  that  can  be  "  the  mother  of  us  all," 


Chap.  XVI.]  Perseverance.  1 9 1 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

PERSEVERANCE, 

There  is  a  tinge  of  superstition  on  all  that  the 
Reformed  have  done  wherever  they  depart  from  the 
simplicity  of  the  gospel.  When  they  talk  of  ''the 
witness  of  the  Spirit  "  (see  Rom.  viii.  16),  after  hav- 
ing taken  the  Spirit  and  made  Him  something  clean 
away  from  the  Person  of  the  Father,  then  they  take 
*'  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  "  and  make  it  something 
sui  ge?ieris,  so  that  a  shrewd  man  wonders  after  and 
fails  to  get  it,  and  so  that  a  weak  man  fancies  it  and 
cries  out  that  it  is  possessed.  Instead  of  understand- 
ing that  *'  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  "  is  a  change  of 
character,  and  consists  in  the  tokens  of  being  a  bet- 
ter man  coming  up  in  answer  to  prayer  in  his  com- 
mon actions,  the  man  is  spoiled  for  this  sort  of  di- 
rectness by  some  imagined  spell,  when  his  whole 
activity  should  be  directed  to  making  himself  better 
by  the  help  he  has  been  told  to  ask.  All  such  things 
are  the  filth  that  chokes  religion. 

We  have  another  instance  of  it  in  "  orders'*  A 
call  to  the  ministry  becomes  a  myth.  Instead  of  a 
sober  judgment  which  we  have  labored  to  make 
complete,  and  on  which  we  have  called  down  direc- 
tion from  on  high,  we  have  a  ghostly  sense,  of  which 
people  claim  that  we  shall  be  conscious,  which  the 
best  judgments  wait  for  and  never  get,  and  which 
some  fanciful  dupe  shall  hail  as  his  summons  into  the 
service. 


192  The   God- Man.  [Book  I  v. 

This  is  the  old  idolism,  and  the  Reformed  church 
suffers  from  it  keenly  in  the  instance  of  faith.  Faith 
gets  to  be  a  Jiocus  pocus.  Men  are  wafted  to  heaven 
at  the  instant  of  faith  ;  and  though  that  is  true  if  faith 
be  real  faith,  yet  it  is  infinitely  not  true  if  faith  is 
such  faith  as  that  good  works  are  all  to  folloiv  it. 
Half  the  world  are  holding  on  to  Christ  because  they 
have  heard  of  Him,  and  because  they  have  found  for 
Him  a  doctrinal  necessity  for  sinners.  This  is  the 
old  crime.  God  calls  circumcision  His  "covenant" 
(Gen.  xvii.  10),  and,  therefore,  the  Rabbis  promise 
life  if  we  are  circumcised.  God  blessed  the  seed  of 
Abraham  (Gen.  xvii.  7,  8),  and,  therefore,  men  went 
mad  to  trace  their  ancestry  (i  Tim.  I.  4).  And 
God  promised  heaven  to  faith  (Acts  xvi.  31),  and, 
therefore,  we  rush  by  all  other  promises  ;  forget  that 
repentance  is  much  oftener  urged  ;  forget  the  requi- 
sition of  being  born  again  ;  and  pitching  upon  faith, 
pretty  soon  denude  it  of  grace>  and  make  it  lay  all 
its  accent  upon  intelligent  believing. 

The  fruit  of  this  is  an  immense  exaggeration  of 
doctrine,  and  an  immense  decay  of  righteousness  of 
life. 

The  like  may  be  said  of  the  doctrine  of  Perse- 
verance. Richard  Baxter  tells  us  that  it  was  not 
known  in  the  church  for  a  thousand  years  (End 
Controv.,  chap.  xxii).  Augustine  distinctly  pro- 
claims that  we  may  fall  from  grace  (Migne's  ed.,  vol. 
X.  pp.  927-8).  Hardly  have  we  got  the  idea  that 
life  is  a  probation,  before,  first  of  all,  it  is  superficial- 
ized   by  mere  doctrinal    faith,  and   then  dismissed 


Chap.  XVI.]  Perseverance,  193 

altogether  by  one  act  of  faith  as  fixing  us  unchange- 
ably. 

The  Scriptures  give  us  no  such  warrant.  We  are 
told  that  the  "  just  shall  live  by  faith,  but  if  he  (see 
Revision)  draw  back,  my  soul  shall  have  no  pleasure 
in  him"  (Heb.  x.  38).  The  meddling  of  King 
James's  version  with  this  simplicity  is  one  of  those 
suspiciousnesses  that  ought  to  make  us  scrutinize 
the  whole  belief  for  which  the  addition  "  if  any  man  " 
has  undoubtedly  been  made.  The  strongest  expres- 
sions for  conversion  are  used  in  connection  with  the 
strongest  expressions  for  falling  away.  **  When  the 
righteous  turneth  away  from  his  righteousness  " 
(Ezek.  xviii.  24).  This  spectacle  is  repeated  in  many 
forms  (Lu.  xxii.  32,  Heb.  x.  39,  Lu.  viii.  13,  14). 
"■  Enlightened  and  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift,"  says 
the  Apostle  Paul  ;  how  could  it  be  more  express  ? 
He  goes  on,  **  Partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  ''tasted 
the  good  word  of  God  and  the  powers  of  the  world 
to  come,"  and  then  boldly  meets  the  contingency, 
"  if  they  shall  fall  away  "  (Heb.  vi.  4-6).  It  is 
trifling  to  try  to  dissipate  such  affirmations.  "  If 
we  sin  wilfully  after  we  have  received  the  knowledge 
of  the  truth  "  (Heb.  x.  26).  Peter,  who  ought  to 
have  understood  apostasy  if  anybody  did,  says, 
**  Better  not  to  have  known  the  way  of  righteous- 
ness, than,  after  we  have  known  it,  to  turn,  etc."  (2 
Pet.  ii.  21),  and  the  very  text  that  is  always  quoted 
in  our  modern  Reformed  creeds  to  establish  the  doc- 
trine of  perseverance,  comes,  when  we  scrutinize  it 
narrowly,  to  be  one  of  the  strongest  the  other  way. 


194  The  God-Man,  [Book  iv. 

It  tells  us  that  *'  he  that  hath  begun  a  good  work  in 
you,  will  perform  it  until  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ  " 
(Phil.  i.  6),  but  just  as  we  are  beginning  to  suppose 
that  that  settles  the  matter,  Paul  spoils  it  all  by  giv- 
ing a  reason.  Why  do  we  require  a  reason  if  every- 
body perseveres  ?  He  gives  a  reason  why  those 
special  followers  of  Emmanuel  will  be  sure  to  go  on. 
He  gives  a  reason  incident  to  his  own  manner  of 
labor.  Every  creed  quotes  this  text,  but  it  is  spoiled 
for  their  purposes  by  this  word  **  BECAUSE.  "  It 
points  to  Paul  as  inspired.  "  I  have  prayed  for 
you  "  (vs.  4-9,  see  also  Lu.  xxii.  32).  They  differed 
from  other  men.  They  had  a  discernerof  spirits  to 
announce  their  persevering  piety;  just  as,  with  no 
discernment,  or,  at  least,  any  claim  to  being  in- 
spired, a  mother,  overflowing  with  faith,  might 
announce  her  feeling  sure  that  the  child  of  her  un- 
ceasing thought  would,  in  the  end,  be  brought  into 
the  kingdom. 

When  we  climb  higher,  and  appeal  to  great  blocks 
of  texts,  and  make  one  truth  bear  upon  another, 
our  point  becomes  still  stronger.  Men  appeal  to 
election,  and  a  favorite  feeling  is,  if  a  m.an  be  elected, 
of  course  he  must  necessarily  persevere.  We  do  not 
doubt  it.  And  Augustine  never  doubted  that,  but 
distinctly  stated  it.  But  that  is  a  mere  tautology. 
If  a  man  is  elected,  he  is  elected.  What  does  it  say 
more  than  that?  If  God  elects  a  poor  sinner,  what 
could  He  say  less  than  that?  If  God  elects  me  to 
be  saved.  He  must  sure  enough  elect  me,  and  how 
can  He  elect  me,  unless  He  gives   me  grace  to  the 


Chap.  XVI.]  Perseverance.  195 

last,  for  he  that  endureth  to  the  end  alone  shall  be 
saved  (Matt.  x.  22).  Election,  therefore,  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  falling  away  ;  for  the  very  question 
is,  whether  every  converted  man  is  elected  to  salva- 
tion? 

And  now,  to  bring  on  another  block,  all  those 
texts  that  have  to  do  with  redemption.  How  can  a 
man  be  redeemed,  and  not  finally  persevere  ?  We 
have  already  studied  much  on  this  point  (B.  iv., 
chap.  v.).  Redemption  has  different  boundaries. 
We  were  redeemed  at  the  cross  (2  Pet.  ii.  i),  some  too 
more  literally  than  the  others  (i  Tim.  iv.  10).  We 
were  redeemed  when  we  became  saints  (i  Cor.  i.  3o\ 
but  some  more  thoroughly  and  abidingly  than  their 
fellow  believers  (Matt.  xiii.  20,  21).  Again,  we  are 
to  be  redeemed  among  the  blest  (Eph.  iv.  30),  and 
then,  for  the  first  time,  not  to  fall  away  (Jo.  x.  28, 
29,  I  Pet.  i.  3-7).  What  exactly  is  the  point,  that 
redemption  forbids  apostasy  ?  Surely  the  first  kind 
of  redemption  does  not.  All  men  have  been  died 
for,  but  all  men  are  not  kept  from  losing  the  bless- 
ing. Where  then  are  the  special  texts  that  forbid 
apostasy?  A  thousand  things  come  to  us  by  re- 
demption, light  and  truth  and  churches,  and  ordi- 
nances and  daily  visitations  of  the  Spirit  (Job  vii. 
18);  anon  the  deepest  convictions  flowing  directly 
from  the  cross,  and  what  appears  thorough  conver- 
sion with  every  sign  of  being  genuine  (Rev.  ii.  2-5). 
What  shall  determine  that  all  these  others  shall 
spring  from  Christ,  but  the  sprouting  upon  the  rocks 
(Matt,  xiii,  5)    not,  or  what  Ezekiel  calls  downright 


1 96  The  God-Man.  [Book  IV. 

and  actual  ''  righteousness  ?  "  It  is,  after  all,  a  mere 
begging  of  the  question. 

And  the  same  may  be  said  of  what  seems  to  rouse 
still  more  horror,  viz.,  that  the  life  of  6^^<^ should  go 
out.  Either  this  is  the  same  horror  as  the  other,  or  it  is 
not.  If  the  same,  we  have  already  answered  it.  If 
it  is  not,  it  is  quite  apart  from  it.  If  the  life  of  God 
is  quite  apart  from  redemption,  I  mean  in  the  pres- 
sure of  the  argument,  then  it  is  easy  to  discuss. 
What  greater  life  of  God  can  there  be  than  was  in 
Satan?  If  I  feel  to  myself  very  much  propped  up 
by  the  Spirit,  how  much  more  was  Adam  propped 
up  ! 

I  have  the  first  fruits  of  the  Spirit.  Lucifer 
had  Him  at  the  full.  I  tremble  with  unbelief. 
Adam  was  perfect  in  his  confidence.  If  my  life  of 
God  is  a  poor  trembling  thing,  which  could  be 
snuffed  out  by  an  accident  of  trial,  how  can  I  con- 
sider that  profane,  when  God's  highest  life,  viz.,  the 
most  splendid  piety  of  the  time,  was  snufifed  out  in 
Satan,  and,  as  Ezekiel  expresses  it,  was  never  ''men- 
tioned "  (Ez.  xviii.  24)? 

Recollect,  we  do  not  rest  upon  these  rationalistic 
arguments,  but  shape  them  to  meet  their  like.  Our 
great  agreement  with  Augustine  is  built  on  the  very 
explicitnesses  of  the  words  of  God  (Ez.  xviii.  24, 
Heb.  X.  38). 


Chap.  XVII.]  History  of  the  Trinity.  i(^7 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

HISTORY   OF  THE  TRINITY 

The  Christology  which  we  have  thus  far  found, 
and  the  gospel  which  we  have  thus  far  laid  bare,  are 
strangely  simple  and  complete,  and  yet  utterly  in- 
dependent of  any  Trinity.  A  mystery  like  that 
must  either  make  or  mar.  It  is  so  full  of  intent, 
that,  if  it  hang  for  a  moment  in  the  wind,  it  shakes 
with  suspicion.  If  God  need  not  be  divided,  from 
eternity,  or  place  a  second  Person  in  the  man,  or 
send  a  Third  Person  on  the  errand  of  the  new 
birth,  and,  in  this  way,  the  simplicity  of  God  can 
be  preserved  ;  and  if  the  closest  scrutiny  of  Scrip- 
ture shows  that  what  Christ  satisfied  was  not  a  First 
Person,  and  that  what  He  bought  and  sent  was  not 
a  Third  Person,  but  that  He  satisfied  the  One  Per- 
son, and  sent  the  same  Person,  and  was,  too,  Himself 
the  same  One  Person,  the  whole  Christological  effect 
was  strangely  simplified.  What  Christ  needed  to 
satisfy,  was  justice  ;  what  He  needed  to  do  it  with, 
was  suffering  ;  what  He  needed  for  suffering,  was  a 
finite  nature  ;  what  He  needed  to  give  it  value  and 
make  it  tell  upon  our  race,  was  the  right  of  a  God  ; 
what  He  needed  to  keep  Him  innocent  and  to  make 
His  people  innocent,  was  the  power  of  a  God.  God 
and  man,  therefore,  and  the  more  simple  the  union 
the  better,  are  the  only  elements  of  Christology. 
And  when  Dorner  says,  "  That  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  was  indebted  for  its  development  to  Christ- 


i  98  The  God-Man.  [Book  IV. 

ology  is  universally  acknowledged  "  (i  A.  p.  354), 
he  really  bears  a  testimony  such  that  when  it  is 
found  that  the  Holy  Ghost  never  does  anything 
that  God  may  not  do,  and  that  Christ  never  does 
anything  that  either  the  man  deified  or  the  God 
impersonate  in  the  man  may  not  through  the  One 
Great  Person  always  accomplish,  he  really  opposes 
the  Trinity  rather  than  helps  it.  The  Trinity  is  such 
an  artifice  as  cannot  lie  idle.  Once  dig  around  it 
and  sap  under  its  base  and  make  it  appear  that  it 
has  no  necessary  force  in  the  offices  of  salvation, 
and  it  is  turned  out  to  die.  It  is  too  expensive  of 
our  faith,  and  has  made  too  many  covers  for  blatant 
unbelief,  to  keep  it  long  in  its  place,  if  it  once 
appears  as  not  necessary  to  salvation. 

And  to  get  it  ready  for  such  a  fate,  we  are  to  ask 
the  question,  Where  did  the  Trinity  come  from  ? 
We  do  not  admit  the  necessity  for  such  a  question. 
There  is  implied  under  it  the  idea  that  peculiar  doc- 
trines must  have  a  detected  origin.  That  notion 
will  not  hold.  Must  transmigration  have  a  detected 
origin  because  it  is  peculiar?  Let  errors  account 
for  themselves  !  The  Mass  is  very  peculiar.  Has 
it  a  claim  on  that  account  ? 

But  as  a  step  for  its  own  sake,  and  a  wonderful 
confirmation  of  the  Scripture,  we  wish  to  show  that 
what  cannot  be  found  there,  can  be  found  elsewhere, 
and  that  this  strange  belief,  which  has  enabled  dan- 
gerous heretics,  like  Mohammed,  to  score  a  strong 
point  against  the  gospel,  entered  by  a  Pagan  door, 
and  triumphed  by  the  best  learning  of  the  Greeks, 


Chap.  XVII.]  Histoiy  of  the  Trifiity.  199 

and  has  scandalized  the  Church  by  half  the  follies 
that  she  herself  gives  up  as  Pagan  heresies. 

Now,  to  do  all  this,  we  mean  to  pursue  a  peculiar 
plan.  If  we  gave  a  continuous  history,  and  filled  up 
all  the  outline  with  what  we  believed  to  be  the  fact, 
we  would  be  harassed  by  assault,  and  lose  the  main 
points  in  distracting  defence  of  the  detail.  Like  a 
mountain  city  that  made  its  crossings  of  high  step- 
ping stones  that  the  rain  torrents  might  pass 
between,  we  mean  to  take  conceded  facts,  and  by 
these  few  numbered  tokens  show  where  the  Trinity 
came  in,  and  how  it  travelled  down  without  the  least 
Scripture  authority  except  from  spurious  revelation 
(I  Jo.  V.  7). 

In  the  first  place,  Noah  became  a  God,  and  his 
three  sons  started  the  world  in  a  Triad  as  the  "  Three 
Kings  "  of  the  old  philosophy.  We  merely  mention 
this.  Some  will  believe  it.  Some  will  deny  it.  We 
rest  nothing  upon  it.  We  believe  that  these  three 
saviours  of  the  world  were  deified  in  Egypt  (where 
Kham  (Ham)  or  Ammon  was  the  admitted  leader), 
were  philosophized  upon  by  Zeno  and  his  time,  and 
confessedly  fell  to  Plato  as  the  foundation  of  his 
mischief-bearing  Three. 

Some  will  deny  this  ;  but  nearly  everybody  will 
accept  it.  Still  we  neither  rest  upon  it  or  number 
it,  and  merely  mention  it  as  paving  the  way  for 
many  minds  to  the  numbered  facts  which  all  are 
forced  to  acknowledge. 

I.  First,  the  Pagans  had  a  Trinity,  and  that  written 
out  in  many  a  sentence  in   their  first   philosophers. 


2CX>  The  God-Man.  [Book  IV. 

This  no  one  who  submits  to  chapter  and  verse  will 
be  likely  to  deny. 

II.  Second,  the  Scriptures  had  no  Trinity;  I  mean 
by  that,  revealed  none  ;  I  mean  by  that,  could  not 
have  succeeded  in  revealing  any,  through  the  four 
thousand  years  of  the  earlier  canon.  It  is  astonish- 
ing how  all  agree.  And  is  not  the  insistence  mon- 
strous— that  the  Trinity  is  the  foundation  of  Christ ; 
that  its  belief  is  essential  to  salvation  (A.  A.  Hodge, 
Outl.,  p.  198);  that  Newton  and  Milton  and  Locke 
and  Watts  must  have  been  damned  for  the  want  of 
it  ;  and  yet,  that  for  four  thousand  years  the  world 
had  it  in  a  spurious  shape,  but  the  Church  was  with- 
out it,  or,  if  she  was  not,  had  it  by  some  other 
books  than  those  brought  down  to  us  as  their 
ancient  revelation  ?  Is  not  this  a  token,  at  the  very 
start,  that  this  cannot  be  a  vital  doctrine,  which,  like 
no  other  vital  doctrine  in  the  list,  is  believed  by 
Bellarmine  and  Calixtusand  Petaviusand  Theodoret 
and  CEstertzee  and  most  of  the  Reformed  theolo- 
gians to  be  incapable  of  proof,  as  Calixtus  expresses 
it,  "  from  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  alone." 

III.  The  Jews,  while  they  taught  no  Trinity,  or, 
to  rule  ourselves  down  to  a  precise  form  in  the 
admission,  while  their  Scriptures  do  not  impart  any, 
had  a  superstition,  notorious  to  scholars,  of  refus- 
ing to  pronounce  the  name  Jehovah.  They  said 
Adhonai  (Lord)  when  they  came  to  those  other  let- 
ters. Two  hundred  times  the  Targums  or  Aramaic 
paraphrases,  even  before  they  became  written,  put 
''the  Word  of  Jehovah''   in   the  place  of  the   more 


Chap.  XVII.]  History  of  the  Trinity.  201 

dreadful  utterance.  The  Septuagint  embalmed  this 
by  throwing  out  what  they  dreaded,  and  we  have 
followed  suit.  By  a  strange  Gentile  compliance  we 
have  framed  our  English  so  as  to  say  ''^ the  Lord** 
almost  always  in  the  Older  Scriptures,^  instead  of 
the  august  word  wdiich  the  Jews,  out  of  mere  super- 
stition, were  afraid  to  pronounce.  Clear  this,  there- 
fore, down  to  its  absolute  intimation.  The  Jews,  no 
matter  what  their  motive,  by  the  confession  of  every- 
body, had  filled  their  literature  with  a  certain  ex- 
pression to  avoid  uttering  the  name  Jehovah,  and 
that  certain  expression,  ''the  Word  of  Jehovah," 
was  rife  upon  their  lips  when  Plato  or  his  followers 
were  teaching  a  Trinity. 

IV.  Fourth,  Ptolemy  at  last  brought  them  to 
Egypt.  He  founded  his  University.  He  rallied  at 
one  spot  the  learning  of  our  planet.  He  immensely 
advanced  it.  He  created  Jewish  literature  to  such 
an  extent  that  its  Augustan  age  began  at  Alex- 
andria. Recollect,  he  was  no  Jew.  He  evoked 
the  Septuagint,  and  mightily  increased  Jewish 
wisdom,  simply  in  a  college  of  scholars  that  invited 
all  schools,  and  endowed  all  study  of  all  arts  and  all 
systems  among  men.  It  was  a  glorious  center.  And 
here  the  Jew  actually  culminated  :  not  in   truth,  for 

*  We  are  shocked  to  see  the  Revisionists  perpetuating  this  mistake. 
Think  of  throwing  out  the  word  of  the  Spirit,  actually  arranged  for  by 
the  Almighty  (Ex.  iii.  13-15,  vi.  2,  3),  and,  in  a  book,  claimingto  be 
inspired,  putting  in  a  Jewish  word,  and  a  word  deliberately  inter- 
posed in  a  corrupted  age,  and  on  the  base  of  acknowledged  supersti- 
tion ;  and  doing  this,  too,  when  many  a  passage  feels  the  loss,  and  is 
made  scarcely  intelligible  by  the  lack  of  one  of  the  few  names  directly 
and  divinely  sent  down  to  men  (Is.  xlii.  8,  i  Ki.  xviii.  2i  ;  see  the 
inconsistency,  Jer.  xvi.  21). 


202  The  God'Man.  [Book  IV. 

that  was  at  Sinai  ;  not  in  grace,  for  that  was  at 
Calvary;  but  in  splendid  gifts.  The  Jew  of  Alex- 
andria was  the  Regent  of  the  future ;  and  our  Prot- 
estant world  is  still  feeling,  after  the  lapse  of  age, 
the  fruit  of  the  fables  put  upon  her  "by  that  mongrel 
school :  for, 

V.  Fifth,  a  higher  authority  in  letters  met  at  this 
great  foundation  the  highest  authority  in  the  world's 
religion.  The  Jew,  ambitious  of  fame,  found  him- 
self confronted  with  the  highest  fame,  viz.,  the  clas- 
sical distinctions  of  the  Greeks.  Moreover,  his 
superstition  was  nursed.  What  he  brought  as  a 
reverence,  he  carried  away  with  him  as  a  creed. 
The  ''  Word  of  Jehovah,"  in  which  he  had  taken 
refuge  from  pronouncing  His  name,  he  found  turned 
into  a  Person,  and  he  took  kindly  to  the  ''Three 
Kings "  of  Plato,  and  adored  the  Providence  by 
which  his  reverence  for  God  had  been  rewarded  by 
an  extension  of  his  vision.  At  any  rate,  no  one 
denies  that  Plato  had  a  Trinity  when  the  Old  Tes- 
tament could  not  impart  it ;  that  the  Jews  had  a 
superstition  that  met,  by  the  mere  sound  of  the  name, 
the  logos  of  the  Greek  ;  that  the  Greek  carried  his 
logos  upon  the  wave  of  classic  preeminence  ;  and  that 
the  Jew,  borne  by  that  wave,  and  carried  upon  it  by 
the  enchantment  of  its  letters,  took  in  the  nev/ 
superstition.  At  least  no  one  will  deny,  that,  failing 
other  tracks,  here  was  a  way  that  the  triune  idea 
could  have  entered  to  the  religious  mind. 

VI.  Sixth,  it  will  be  equally  admitted  that  the 
first  Jewish  Trinity,  I  mean  by  that  the  first  one  of 


Chap.  XVII.]  History  of  the  Trinity.  203 

which  we  have  any  record,  is  Arian,  like  that  of 
Plato.  It  was  not  Three  Persons,  but  the  Great 
Father  and  two  subordinates.  We  hear  of  none 
other  for  centuries.  In  Christ's  time  it  is  described 
by  Philo.  In  fact  that  Jew  ripened  it,  and  gives  it 
in  strict  detail.  It  is  not  the  Nicene  Trinity,  but 
the  classic  and  Pagan  one,  and,  moreover,  the  only 
one  that  the  history  of  that  time  unveils.  We  creep 
on,  and, 

VII.  Seventhly,  Philo  the  Jew  reappears,  in  the 
doctrine  he  taught,  in  Cerinthus  the  Christian. 
There  is  hardly  any  difference  :  and  then, 

VIII.  Eighthly,  the  scheme  moves  on  to  Arius. 
These  things  are   all  admitted.     I   do   not  mean 

that  this  is  all  that  is  advanced.  It  is  advanced  that 
Christ  had  a  Trinity,  and  His  apostles  ;  and  that  is 
the  very  doctrine  that  is  here  assailed.  But  I  mean 
that  when  Irenaeus  says  that  John  zvrote  his  gospel 
to  answer  the  errors  of  Cerinthus,  and  that  when  he 
tells  us  what  those  errors  are,  and  they  are  much 
what  is  shadowed  in  Plato,  and  when  he  tells  us  that 
Cerinthus  taught  that  there  was  an  Emanation,  and 
that  that  Emanation  was  in  time,  that  it  was  not  the 
Eternal  God,  and  was  not  distinctly  a  creature,  but 
that  it  was  between  God  and  a  creature,  and  was 
before  all  worlds,  much  as  Philo  taught,  and  when 
we  take  up  John  and  read,  ''  In  the  beginning  was 
the  Word,"  trampling  in  the  first  step  on  the  idea 
that  he  was  ''  in  time,''  and  "  the  Word  belonged  to 
God"  (ttp^)?,  like  roc  npbi  rdv  Sebv,  *' things  belong- 
ing to  God,"  Heb.v.  i)  like  His  hand  or  His  arm,  and 


204  The  God- Man.  [Book  I  v. 

when,  above  all,  we  read  ''  and  God  was  the  Word  " 
(plainly  the  Greek),  which  sets  Alford  to  crying 
that  that  order  would  destroy  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  ! — we  see  how  smoothly,  all  the  way  down, 
agreed  upon  history  should  give  us  occasion  to 
doubt,  and  serve  in  the  end  to  upset  the  evil. 

For  see,  all  the  way  down,  what  bloody  difficul- 
ties have  beset  the  Triad  !  The  Platonist,  a  con- 
fessed Pagan  ;  Philo,  a  perverted  Jew  ;  Cerinthus, 
from  whose  side  the  beloved  John  sprang  with  hor- 
ror from  the  bath  ;  Arius,  who  convulsed  three  conti- 
nents ;  Socinus,  who  denied  the  Deity  of  Christ  ; 
Sabellius,  who  turned  His  Godhead  into  a  mere 
manifestation ;  and  Swedenborg,  who  denied  the 
soul  of  His  humanity — all  illustrate  the  sadness  of 
such  a  fable,  and  all  illustrate  the  hope  that  now,  at 
last,  when  the  firmest  evangelic  beliefs  are  for  the 
first  time  associated  with  its  denial,  its  doom  has 
come,  and  that  the  anti-depravity  of  Socinus,  and 
the  anti-Deity  of  the  Arian  and  Sabellian,  and  the 
anti-humanity  of  Swedenborg,  may  no  longer  take 
refuge,  and  find  the  best  place  for  their  fight  to  be 
on  that  most  superior  ground  of  opposition  to  a 
fable. 

We  might  mention  lesser  histories  : — (i)  the 
forgery  in  John  (i  Jo.  v.  7);  (2)  the  declaration  by 
many  of  the  Reformed  that  a  belief  of  this  forged 
doctrine  is  essential  to  salvation  (A.  A:  Hodge, 
Outlines  Theol.,  p.  198)  ;  (3)  the  consigning,  there- 
fore, of  Milton,  and  Watts,  and  Locke,  and  Sir 
Isaac  Newton,  and  the  sainted  Ware,  and  our  mod- 


Chap.  XVIII.]    Trinity  a  Curse  if  False,        205 

ern  Peabody  and  Clarke  to  necessary  perdition ; 
(4)  the  giving  up  of  ancient  arguments  for  the  Triad 
as  not  sufificient,  and  then,  like  a  piano  key,  letting 
them  fly  back  into  their  place ;  (5)  the  turning  of 
the  Trinity  into  a  rationalism,  as,  for  example, 
Power  and  Mind  and  Will,  or  Being  and  Love 
and  Power,  or  God  and  Reason  and  Act,  and  let- 
ting that  stand  to  keep  the  proposer  of  it  safe  in  his 
place  in  the  Church  (see  Edwards,  Calvin,  &c.) ;  (6) 
and  lastly,  the  shaken  minds  of  men  like  Melancthon, 
who  wrote  his  Loci-Communes  without  the  Trinity, 
and  then  returned  to  it  in  dread  of  leaving  it  out, 
and  like  Calvin  and  other  of  our  Reformed  theolo- 
gers,  who  dropped  uneasy  whisperings,  and  rather 
excused  themselves,  in  their  pressure  of  ruder 
reforms,  from  leisure  to  undertake  the  Trinity — all 
these  are  causes  of  suspicion,  and  may  be  looked 
upon  some  day  as  strangenesses  that  should  have 
excited  thought,  and,  indeed,  as  refutations  in  them- 
selves, and  spectacles  that  should  have  unmasked  a 
fiction. 

CHAPTER   XVIII. 

THE  TRINITY,    IF   FALSE,    A  CURSE  AND    A   BLASPHEMY. 

Grant  that  the  Trinity  is  a  mistake,  and  then  all 
would  admit  that  it  is  a  curse  and  a  blasphemy. 

L  It  is  a  curse,  in  the  first  place,  because  it 
tempts  back  toward  Polytheism  the  nations  that 
have  so  hardly  escaped  from  it  ; 

Second,  because  it  has  been  a  nesting-place  for 


2o6  The  God-Man.  [Bookiv. 

abominations.  What  bred  Mohammed  ?  Undoubt- 
edly the  three  Gods  of  the  Syrian  bishops.  Run 
over  the  dangerous  sects.  Half  of  them  make  some 
point  against  the  Trinity,  and  learn  by  a  mute  in- 
stinct to  press  that  point,  while  behind  it  are  their 
real  aberrations.  The  Genevese  are  not  most  dan- 
gerously Unitarian,  but  most  dangerously  Pelagian, 
and  it  is  their  superior  Scripture  for  the  one,  that 
keeps  them  from  battling  much  on  the  side  of  the 
other.  A  sacrificial  atonement  could  support  itself 
by  Scripture  ;  but  when  it  is  mad  enough  to  link 
itself  with  the  Platonic  Three,  it  succumbs  in  the 
fight,  when  its  opponents  are  shrewd,  and  assault 
the  Godhead  of  Christ  as  though  only  possible  in  a 
triune  relation. 

Third,  it  limits  missions.  What  can  we  do 
against  Islam  ?  It  would  be  worth  while  to  deny  the 
Trinity  to  disencumber  somebody  who  might  go  in 
and  save  the  Jews.  If  the  Trinity  be  false,  how  un- 
welcome to  our  Master  that  there  is  no  church  that 
can  approach  a  Turk  without  a  scandal  at  the  very 
entrance  of  her  teachings. 

Fourth,  it  perverts  redemption.  Instead  of  a 
satisfaction  of  divine  justice,  in  spite  of  ourselves  it 
breeds  the  notion  of  the  placating  of  one  Power  by 
another.  Then  it^  corrupts  the  very  idea  of  punish- 
ment itself.  Set  one  God  over  against  another 
God,  and  we  not  only  revert  toward  Polytheism,  but 
we  grime  our  idol.  We  make  it  the  ''First  King" 
(Plato  in  Tim.  ii.  93)  mad  upon  his  vengeance. 
We  erect  what    we  call  Vindicatory  Justice.     We 


Chap.  XVIIL]    Trinity  a   Cttrse  if  False.        207 

instal  a  "  Second  King,"  milder  and  more  gracious 
than  the  "  First  "  ;  and  we  erect  a  Vindicatory  Jus- 
tice, not  a  derivative  from  holiness,  but  itself  a 
principle  of  holiness,  pari  passu  with  mercy,  and 
having  an  original  claim  upon  the  Father  of  men 
(see  Hodge,  Syst.  TheoL,  vol.  i.  pp.  238,  420). 

If  we  could  trace  the  Trinity,  we  should  find  it, 
like  the  thread  in  the  rock-crystal,  that  about  which 
the  chemicals  have  gathered,  and  which  agglom- 
erates to  itself  much  of  the  heresy  of  man. 

II.  If  the  Trinity  be  false,  it  is  more  than  a  curse, 
it  is  in  its  very  self  a  blasphemy. 

(i)  It  divides  God.  That  is  no  mean  crime.  A 
Book  that  cries,  "  Jehovah  shall  be  one  and  His 
name  one  "  (Zech.  xiv.  9),  is  strangely  ravished  when 
it  is  made  to  divide  the  Eternal.  This  is  a  crime 
against  nature.  When  nature  looks  down  with 
so  clean  a  face,  and  would  carry  to  our  ear  so 
unitary  an  Origin  of  All,  it  is  death  to  separate, 
and  the  penalty  has  been  cruelly  high,  when,  through 
all  the  age,  it  has  tormented  us  when  we  came  to 
worship.  If  the  Holy  Ghost  be  simply  the  Father 
(2  Cor.  iii.  17,  Jo.  xvi.  15),  then  the  Moslem  has 
advantage  of  us  when  he  cries  from  the  minaret, 
"Allah  is  one  Allah;  "  and,  if  Christ  be  the  same 
Father  incarnate  in  a  man,  then  Israel  shames  our 
folly  Avhen  he  puts  at  the  fore-front  in  the  Syna- 
gogue, "  Hear,  O  Israel,  Jehovah,  our  God,  is  one 
Jehovah  "  (Deut.  vi.  4). 

The  first  profanity,  therefore,  is  in  the  thing  itself, 
dividing  God, 


2o8  The  God- Man.  [Book  IV. 

(2)  But  the  second  is  in  the  way  we  have  been 
talking  about  it. 

To  defend  so  foolish  a  notion  as  the  Triad,  we 
have  waked  up  a  loveliness  in  it,  and  a  benefaction 
to  the  Persons  of  the  Almighty.  We  have  been 
pointed  to  the  eternity  past,  and  told  how  lonely 
God  must  have  been  if  there  had  been  no  Triality  ! 
The  Deity,  we  have  been  told,  is  one  essence,  and 
we  have  been  forced,  under  the  cry  of  Tritheism,  to 
admit  that  He  is  one  essence  with  but  a  single  con- 
sciousness, and  yet,  with  this  admission,  which  makes 
what  follows  doubly  foolish,  we  are  told  that  the 
One  Conscious  Essence  had  intercourse  together! 
and  that  the  mutual  love,  made  possible  by  the 
Three,  held  at  bay  the  terrible  loneliness  of  the  One 
Almighty !  That  a  godly  professor  should  look 
bearded  youths  in  the  face,  and  tell  them  of  such  a 
phantasy,  can  only  find  in  the  innocence  of  the 
speech  a  chief  excuse  for  its  utter  blasphemous- 
ness. 

(3)  But,  thirdly,  this  figment  of  a  Trinity  has 
given  cover  to  that  profane  thought  of  a  kenosis 
(Phil.  ii.  7),  or  emptying  of  Himself  by  God.  If  we 
contemplated  One  Jehovah,  it  would  be  difficult  so 
to  trifle.  But  having  separated  Him  into  Three, 
One  becomes  a  more  easy  victim. 

(4)  Precisely  similar  is  a  fourth  notion,  of  the 
Patripassians.  It  is  dangerous  to  begin  compli- 
ances. The  anthropomorphistic  fable  of  the  Three 
easily  gives  up  One  of  the  already  undeified  Triad  to 
this  other  profane  touch.     Instead  of  a  Maker  ab- 


Chap.  XVIII.]    Trinity  a   Curse  if  False.        209 

solutely  perfect,  instead  of  a  God  necessarily  happy, 
instead  of  a  Power  utterly  unchangeable,  we  come 
at  last  to  assail  even  the  Father  with  the  idea  of 
emptying  Himself;  or,  with  very  much  the  same 
thought,  that  He  chose  to  suffer,  that  the  Most  High 
King,  for  a  grain  of  sand  like  this  earth,  for  a  race 
of  ants  like  us  its  people,  could  abdicate  His  most 
high  state,  and  could  absolutely  make  nugatory  His 
incarnation  in  a  suffering  creature. 

Preposterousnesses  do  not  seem  to  hold  such 
theorists.  How  the  church  has  spawned  profane 
conceivings  !  Beginning  with  a  Trinity,  even  in  our 
attempts  to  escape  it  we  have  the  same  trend 
toward  what  seems  constitutionally  profane.  The 
Monarchians,  instead  of  going  boldly  out  into  the 
deep,  and  conceiving  the  Israelitish  God  with  even 
more  purity  than  either  Jew  or  Moslem,  contami- 
nated Him  with  the  Three,  left  Him  to  be  stripped, 
gave  Him  over  to  suffer,  and,  after  all,  clave  to  some 
sort  of  Threeness,  and,  instead  of  treating  boldly  a 
God  to  forgive  and  His  humanity  to  endure  the  sac- 
rifice, got  mixed  up  more  than  others  (see  Dorner, 
A.  ii.  pp.  7-26,  Eusebius,  Mosheim),  and  prevented 
the  world,  ages  since,  from  doing  without  the  Pla- 
tonic misery. 


BOOK  V. 

THE   HEREAFTER. 


CHAPTER  I. 

DEATH  AND  THE   RESURRECTION. 

That  which  claims  to  be  natural,  if  it  seem  vio- 
lently against  nature,  is  harder  to  establish  with 
proof  than  that  which  is  confessedly  supernatural. 
It  is  so  with  the  Trinity.  That  God  is  Three  by 
nature  scoffs  more  at  the  possibilities  of  proof  than 
that  He  chose  to  be  incarnate.  The  same  is  true  of 
immortality.  The  bean  dies  and  perishes,  and  that 
too  when  its  life  is  something  more  than  its  matter. 
A  dog  dies  and  perishes,  and  that  when  its  flesh  is 
something  less  than  its  spirit.  But  a  man  dies,  and 
w^e  are  to  be  taught  that  he  goes  right  on  to  live. 
We  open  his  body,  and  he  is  like  animals,  heart  and 
spleen.  Every  viscus  is  in  place.  Moreover  the 
beating  of  his  pulse  and  the  current  of  his  blood 
and  the  action  of  his  stomach  and  his  diseases  were 
as  theirs  are.  They  have  conscience  and  reason  in 
incipient  shadow,  and  some  measure  of  taste,  like 
his.  They  die  and  sleep  in  the  dust,  and  he  dies 
and  lives  !  Now  I  am  not  saying  that  this  is  impos- 
sible, but  that  it  is  to  the  last  degree  improbable, 


Chap.  1.]     Death  and  the  Resurrection.  2 1 1 

like  the  Triality  of  our  Maker  ;  and  the  more,  because, 
like  that  TriaHty,  it  pretends  to  be  natural,  instead 
of  an  open  miracle  like  the  rising  from  the  dead. 

Like  the  Triality  also,  it  pretends  to  miracle  be- 
sides. Ghost-life  is  not  enough,  but,  striking  now 
the  actual  revelations  of  the  Bible,  it  adds  resurrec- 
tion. As  the  Logos  must  miraculously  enter  the  Gal- 
ilean, so  the  ghost,  after  flitting  for  years,  must  be- 
come incarnate ;  that  is,  the  undying  ghost  must 
return,  and  revivify  the  body  at  the  last  day. 

Now,  our  principle  is  not  to  deny  all  this.  We 
are  ready  for  ghost-life  if  the  Bible  teaches  it  ;  just 
as  we  are  ready  for  the  Trinity,  absurd  as  it  seems, 
if  it  is  taught  in  Scripture  ;  but  all  we  are  pleading 
for  is  this — the  evidence  has  to  be  very  great. 
When  one  grand  resurrection  would  accomplish  all ; 
when  ghost-life  might  rest,  and  man  die  and  pass 
out  of  life  like  other  creatures  ;  when  all  analogy 
might  hold,  and  all  appearances  be  met,  and  many 
errors  be  cancelled,  by  allowing  him  to  sleep  in  his 
grave ;  when  the  objection,  that,  once  dead,  he  can- 
not be  arraigned,  is  met  by  the  fact  that  we  are 
arraigned  for  what  passed  in  Eden  six  millenniums 
ago :  when  the  plea  that,  expecting  to  slumber,  we  can 
hardly  be  roused  by  the  same  fear  of  eternal  wrath, 
is  met  by  the  fact  that  the  slumber  will  be  dream- 
less, and  the  trumpet-clang  break  instantly  upon  our 
conscious  seeming,  all  we  say  is,  that,  as  this  view  is 
more  solemn  than  the  other,  it  should  only  be  by 
irrefragable  tests  that  the  other  should  be  even 
tolerated. 


212  The  Hereafter.  [Book  v. 

*  Before  you  begin,'  some  one  may  cry  out,  *  say 
where  this  ghost-thought  ever  could  have  come 
from.'  The  same,  you  remember,  was  claimed  as  to 
the  Trinity.  If  the  Trinity  is  not  true,  where  could 
it  have  come  from  ?  And  the  reply  you  remember, 
"  Let  the  dead  bury  their  dead."  Where  did  the 
Mass  come  from  ?  We  are  not  responsible  for  the 
nesting-place  of  heresies.  Nevertheless,  you  remem- 
ber that  we  did  show  how  it  came  among  the  Jews 
at  Alexandria.  And  the  smile  will  be  awakened 
when  we  turn  to  Plato  again.  The  resurrection  had 
been  forgotten.  A  trace  of  it  remained  in  Egypt 
(as  to  India,  see  Alger) ;  but  so  bold  a  doctrine 
among  Gentile  men  had  passed  measurably  out  of 
view.  Vague  traditions  of  immortality  bred  the 
manes  and  shadows  of  Eastern  superstition.  Plato, 
that  great  digester  of  dreams,  wove  it  into  his  books. 
Man  has  never  shaken  it  off.  Luther  tried  to  (Op. 
Witt.  V.  4,  p.  36).  Tyndal  called  it  the  "  fleshly 
doctrine  of  philosophers  "  (Op.  p.  327).  The  Old 
Testament,  we  shall  see,  refuted  it  ;  but  the  Jew, 
like  a  child,  held  on  to  the  old  apple  while  he 
grasped  the  new ;  and  we,  in  the  ages  since,  have 
jumbled  both  the  theories  ;  and,  though  the  grand 
resurrection  has  been  revealed,  have  held  on  to 
Plato's  ghost,  and  applied  the  Christian  resurrection 
only  to  the  revivifying  of  the  body. 

Having,  therefore,  increased  the  marvel  of  immor- 
tality by  making  it  begin  at  death,  and  then  adding 
to  it  the  miracle  of  resurrection,  and  in  a  form  more 
unlikely  than   the  other,  we  might   suppose  that  so 


Chap.  I.]     Death  and  the  Resurrection,  2 1 3 

difficult  a  conceit  would   be   found  propped   by  the 
strongest    revelation.      Instead    of   that,    revelation 
itself  has  to  be  mended  to  make  it  bear  less  palpably 
against  the  system.    Where  the  Bible  makes  the  soul 
to  be  ourselves  (Is.  xlvi.  2,  Hos.  ix.  4),  and,  in  fact,  the 
usage  of  the  Hebrew  language,  growing  out  of  such 
a  reality,  makes  the  soul  mean  self  in  one  of  its  sig- 
nifications   (Gesenius),  we  would    hardly  know  by 
the  translation  that  such  was  the  process  of  thought 
(Ex.  xxi.  23).     Where  souls  are  the  souls  of  brutes 
(Gesenius),  we  avoid    the    inconsistency   by  giving 
them    some    other   version    (Gen.    ii.     19).      Where 
fishes  are  represented  as  souls,  and  men  are  not,  in 
the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  (vs.  20,  21),  King  James 
is  innocent  of  such  a  language,  and  calls  them  ''  liv- 
ing creatures."     "Dead  souls"  (Heb.)  are  just  un- 
blushingly  called  "  dead  bodies  "  (E.  V.,  Lev.  xxi.  1 1, 
Num.vi.  6);  and  where  Solomon,  in  a  way  strangely 
enlightening,  asks,  "  Who  knoweth  of  any  spirit  of 
man  that  goeth  upward,  and  of  any  spirit  of  a  brute 
that   goeth  downward  to  the   earth? "  (Ec.  iii.  21), 
the  translators  cast    it   into   this  taking-for-granted 
mould.     Instead  of  ''  a  spirit "  or  "  any  spirit,"  they 
say  "  the  spirit,"  as  though  there  were  such  a  thing, 
and,  with    this   slight   interpolation,   work  a  whole 
difference,  for  they  read  it  thus  :  "  Who  knoweth  the 
spirit    of   man  that    goeth    upward,  and    the    spirit 
of  the  beast  that  goeth  downward  to  the  earth?" 
(E.  v.). 

And  yet,  with  all  this  modification,  the  truth  will 
break  out.     The  whole  language  of  the   Hebrew  is 


2 1 4  The  Hereafter.  [Book  V. 

redolent  with  man's  entire  death.  Expressions  of 
ours  have  never  a  counterpart.  We  never  hear  of 
our  **  remains."  Joseph  died,  Jacob  was  buried, 
Joseph  was  put  in  a  coffin  in  Egypt.  We  never 
hear  of  leaving  the  body.  Resurrection  of  the  body 
is  never  talked  about.  Continued  consciousness  of 
the  soul  is  never  even  hinted.  But,  on  the  contrary, 
coming  to  bold  testimonies.  Job  settles  the  question  : 
"  Till  the  heavens  be  no  more  they  shall  not  awake  " 
(Job.  xiv.  12);  David  bears  witness,  "  In  that  very 
day  his  thoughts  perish"  (Ps.  cxlvi.  4);  Solomon 
declares,  As  the  beast  dies  so  dies  the  man  (Ec. 
iii.  19),  and  sweeps  all  away,  for  he  says,  "  There  is 
no  work,  nor  device,  nor  knowledge,  nor  wisdom,  in 
the  grave  whither  thou  goest "  (Ec.  ix.  10). 

When  we  come  to  the  New  Testament,  the  whole 
ground  is  more  thoroughly  entrenched.  What  could 
"  the  judgment  "  be  (Matt.  xxv.  32)  if  we  had  been 
centuries  in  hell  ?  What  could  the  surprises  be 
(Matt.  xxv.  11)?  Why  do  we  hear  of  ^^  that  day'' 
(2  Tim.  i.  12,  18)?  Why  does  everything  centre  upon 
the  coming  of  our  Redeemer? 

And  then,  as  didactic  proof,  what  does  Paul  mean 
in  that  fifteenth  chapter  (Corinthians)?  *' If  the 
dead  rise  not,"  he  evidently  believes  life  is  over. 
He  says  that  in  perfectly  irrefragable  speech.  The 
Scripture  says  afterward,  **  These  all,  attested  by 
faith,  received  not  the  promise,  God,  on  our  account, 
having  looked  forward  to  the  something  better,  that 
they  without  us  should  not  be  made  perfect  "  (Heb. 
xi.  39,  40) ;  but  in  that  chapter  of  Corinthians  Paul 


Chap.  I.]    Death  and  the  Resurrection,  215 

cannot  be  read  except  only  in  one  meaning.  Let 
anybody  try.  He  says,  "If  after  the  manner  of  men 
I  have  fought  with  beasts  at  Ephesus,  what  advanta- 
geth  it  me  if  the  dead  rise  not  ?  "  (i  Cor.  xv.  32).  He 
gives  as  the  alternative,  "  Then  they  that  have  fallen 
asleep  in  Christ  are  perished"  (v.  18);  and  he  gives 
as  his  alternative,  boldly  and  wickedly  uttered,  I 
mean  if  Platonism  is  to  be  our  eschatological  belief, 
that  wassail-song  of  the  Greeks,  "  Let  us  eat  and 
drink,  for  to-morrow  we  die." 

There  is  a  fatality,  too,  about  all  objections.  The 
objection  about  Dives  (Lu.  xvi.  19)!  If  that  be 
sound,  Hell  is  in  the  grave  (v.  23),  and  the  lost  have 
tongues,  and  can  be  cooled  and  comforted  by  a  drop 
of  water.  It  is  evident  that  the  scene  is  an  allegory, 
like  the  sitting  up  of  the  kings  (Is.  xiv.  9),  or  like 
the  souls  of  the  beheaded  (Rev.  xx.  4),  true  in 
moral,  but  not  in  the  least  intended  either  as  to  time 
or  circumstance.  So  of  the  cry  upon  the  cross.  It 
does  not  mean,  "  This  day  thou  shalt  be  with  me," 
but  *'  I  say  unto  you  to-day  "  (Lu.  xxiii.  34).  The 
thief  had  shrunk  from  asking  his  tormented  Partner, 
and  begged  Him  only  to  "  remember  "  him.  Christ 
turns  upon  him  at  the  moment,  and  settles  that 
question  for  ever  :  I  say  unto  you  at  once,  "  Thou 
shalt  be  with  me  in  Paradise." 

A  strange  interest  lies  in  the  two  strongest  pas- 
sages. They  are  the  bulwarks  of  the  doctrine  of 
ghosts  ;  the  one  in  Corinthians,  "  Present  with  the 
Lord  "  (2  Cor.  v.  8),  and  the  other  in  Philippians, 
"  To  depart  and  be  with  Christ  which  is  far  better  " 


2 1 6  The  Hereafte7\  [Book  V. 

(Phil.  i.  23).  We  have  expounded  both  at  length 
in  another  book  (Are  Souls  Immortal  ?  p.  78).  We 
would  expound  them  over  again  were  it  not  that  in 
so  short  a  theology  the  testimony  of  first-class 
scholars  is  more  effective,  if  they  personally  believe 
that  the  soul  is  not  mortal  ;  and  such  a  testimony 
we  <gvjQ  when  we  say  that  Lange,  EUicott  and  Alford 
{in  loc.)  apologize  for  Paul  as  having  ''entirely  lost 
sight  "  (see  Lange)  of  an  "  intermediate  state." 

It  is  to  us  deeply  interesting  that  the  soul  should 
be  embodied.  God  created  us  dust  ^  (see  //«/.,  Gen. 
ii.  7).  Our  home  is  this  planet.  It  is  more  than  a 
guess  that  we  shall  return  to  it  again  (Matt.  v.  5,  2 
Pet.  iii.  13).  By  one  of  the  catastrophes  of  its  wrecks 
the  world  must  be  burned  up  (2  Pet.  iii.  10,  12). 
By  one  of  its  restitutions  (Acts  iii.  21),  or  creations, 
it  may  be  refitted.  Flora  and  fauna  may  be  sup- 
plied, but  for  people  saints  may  be  called  up.  Dust, 
which  had  returned  to  dust  as  it  was  (Ec.  xii.  7),  and 
breath,  which  had  been  called  back  to  God  (Gen.  xlix. 
33),  both  will  have  received  the  fiat  of  eternal 
restoration. 

CHAPTER  II. 

ROMISH     ERRORS. 

The  idea  of  a  mortal  soul,  if  it  have  not  anything 
vicious  in  itself,  certainly  is  very  far  from  disturbing 
the  Gospel.  If  we  get  souls  back  again,  how  can 
they  be  missed  between  death  and  the  resurrection  ? 

*  "  Of  the  "  (E.  V.)  is  interpolated. 


Chap.  II.]  Romish  Errors.  2 1 7 

And,  therefore,  England  threw  her  fortieth  article 
away,  and  left  thirty-nine.  She  may  have  had 
majorities  to  support  it,  but  where  would  have  been 
the  profit  ?  We  have  shown  how  solemn  it  is  to 
die,  when,  instantly  to  our  consciousness,  we  shall 
ascend  to  judgment.  Where  can  it  affect  the 
Gospel  ?  By  death  all  will  have  been  arranged. 
No  doctrine  is  put  at  hazard  by  any  intermediate 
condition  ;  and  as  to  feeling,  it  is  more  pleasant  to 
me  to  rise  with  all  saints,  and  to  go  up  to  heaven 
with  my  children  and  my  father,  than  to  have  little 
children  grown  out  of  my  sight  in  their  beatitude 
before  me. 

No  matter  for  the  reasons.  The  Episcopal  Church 
threw  out  the  doctrine  ;  and  let  me  say,  they  threw 
it  out  after  it  had  been  in  ten  years.  They  tried  it, 
and  rejected  it,  and  the  words  they  cast  out  are  dis- 
tinctly these,  amply  specifying  the  usual  doctrine  of 
our  immortality : — ''  They  who  say  that  the  souls  of 
such  as  depart  hence  do  sleep,  being  without  all 
sense,  feeling  and  perceiving  until  the  day  of  judg- 
ment, or  affirm  that  the  souls  die  with  the  bodies, 
and  at  the  last  day  shall  be  raised  up  with  the  same, 
do  utterly  dissent  from  the  right  belief  declared 
unto  us  in  the  holy  Scripture." 

While,  however,  the  denial  of  a  ghost-life  does 
not  affect  the  Gospel,  the  teaching  of  it  has  filled 
the  world  with  corruption.  Millions  have  been 
lavished  upon  Mary,  when  we  believe  she  is  the  dust 
of  sepulchres.  And  so  of  Purgatory.  Prayers  for 
the   dead   grow   right  out    of   this  rejected   article. 


2 1 8  The  Hereafter.  [Book  V. 

And  the  invocation  of  the  saints  has  so  enlisted  the 
support  of  men,  that  even  Luther  hated  to  give  up 
our  becoming  ghosts,  because  he  hankered  after  the 
assistance  of  spirits. 

What  floods  of  folly  should  we  sweep  away? 

And  when  the  hydra  of  Roman  Catholic  conceits 
has  so  many  of  its  poisons  in  this  single  head,  how 
wonderful  that  we  have  not  earlier  cut  it  off  ;  how 
wonderful  that  the  testimony  of  Luther,  and  the 
loud  appeal  of  Tyndal  on  his  very  way  to  the  stake, 
did  not  make  men  more  ready  to  conclude,  as  he 
did,  that  the  '*  Pope  consenteth  to  heathen  doctrine, 
and,  therefore,  corrupteth  Scripture,  to  establish  it ;" 
and,  more  directly,  for  he  is  arguing  with  Sir  Thomas 
More,  ''  In  putting  departed  souls  in  heaven,  hell 
and  purgatory,  ye  do  destroy  the  arguments  where- 
with Christ  and  Paul  prove  the  resurrection  "  (Tyn- 
dal, p.  327). 

CHAPTER    III. 

HELL   AND    HEAVEN. 

Eternal  punishment,  in  that  awful  shape  in 
which  it  is  a  part  of  most  religions,  is  the  most 
bewildering  doctrine  of  the  word  of  God.  Few  men 
can  think  of  it.  Moreover,  no  man,  if  we  may  judge 
from  our  own  shrinking  from  the  task,  can  believe  it 
as  we  do  the  existence  of  God,  or  with  that  firm 
certainty  with  which  we  honor  the  mercy  of  our 
Master. 

There  are  reaches  of  the  thought  that  make  one 


Chap.  III.]  Hell  and  Heaven,  219 

positively  dizzy.  If  sin  deserves  punishment,  then 
eternal  sinning  will  deserve  eternal  punishment. 
But  if  eternal  sinning  deserve  eternal  punishment, 
as  the  weightiest  punishment  of  sin  is  sinfulness 
(see  Rom.  vi.  23),  then  eternal  sinning  will  eternally 
increase  our  punishment,  and  then,  of  course,  eternal 
sinfulness  and  pain  will  go  on  increasing  through  the 
endless  ages  of  our  being. 

The  bewildering  character  of  this  truth,  however, 
has  been  needlessly  increased  by  human  additions. 

1.  The  doctrine  of  predestination  has  been  so 
brutally  handled  as  to  make  a  divine  sovereignty, 
which  is  entire,  nevertheless  sting  and  provoke  the 
soul  at  the  very  moment  of  the  threat  of  ruin. 

2.  As  though  Hell  were  not  sufficient  to  believe 
in,  men  have  poured  bitterness  into  our  distress  by 
saying  that  it  was  a  birth  of  God's  *'  mere  good 
pleasure," 

3.  And  then  maddened  me  with  the.  thought,  that, 
from  all  eternity,  I  was  to  be  in  Hell  for  the  supreme 
motive  of  displaying  to  the  universe  my  Maker's 
infinite  perfections ! 

It  is  a  wonder  religion  has  not  been  banished 
from  the  earth. 

'  It  is  the  obvious  policy,  in  speaking  of  the  Pit,  to 
banish  out  of  it  at  the  start  all  heathenish  ideas. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  God  is  holy.  Whatever  may 
be  said  of  His  sovereignty,  it  is  the  out-birth  simply 
of  His  holiness. 

2.  In  the  second  place,  God  is  Just.  And  it  is  a 
vast  mitigator  of  difficulty  to  say  of  the  inexpressible 


2  20  The  Hereafter.  [Book  V. 

future,  dark  and  dizzying  as  it  may  seem,  that,  like 
the  swing  of  a  pendulum,  it  will  be  true,  and  be  by 
the  touch  of  a  just  hand  all  through  the  ages  of  its 
history. 

3.  In  the  third  place.  Hell  will  be  wilful.  That 
speaks  a  volume.  We  will  keep  on  there  in  the 
chief  half  of  our  doom  by  our  own  wilful  wicked- 
ness. There  will  be  no  repentance  among  the  lost. 
And  this  alters  very  materially  our  idea  of  the  place. 
It  will  be  a  place  of  torment,  and  undoubtedly  of 
suffering  in  the  body,  but  not  in  the  sense  of  dis- 
traction, like  rolling  in  a  lake  of  fire,  and  not  in 
maniac  shrieks  and  horrors,  but  in  calm  wickedness. 
There  is  no  life-time  in  the  Pit,  but  a  final  residence. 
It  may  be  a  planet,  like  ours.  There  must  be  prac- 
tical modes  of  habitation.  And  in  the  darkness  of 
despair  there  must  be  schemes  for  getting  on,  and 
modes  of  a  moral  sort  for  deepening  and  acting 
out  detestable  corruption. 

This  does  not  abate  punishment,  but  rather  sup- 
ports it  ;  for  I  think  it  may  be  conceded  to  our  pity 
that  torment  need  be  less  great  for  the  very  reason 
of  its  looking  forward  to  an  eternal  history. 

4.  Now,  add  to  all  this,  Christ ;  the  enormous 
evidence  in  Christ ;  the  enormous  evidence  in  Christ 
that  God  pitied  the  lost ;  the  enormous  evidence 
of  Hell  in  God's  being  moved  to  such  an  alternative 
as  redemption  ;  and  then  throw  the  thoughts  into 
shape  by  saying  that  God  was  not  wilful,  and  that 
He  was  not  sovereign  in  the  form  of  mere  wilfulness, 
but  simply  of  His  holiness,  and  that  He   was   not 


Chap.  III.]  Hell  and  Heaven.  221 

reconciled  to  the  death  of  the  sinner  except  by- 
absolute  demands,  and  that  these  demands  were  just 
as  fatal  as  the  Fate  of  Islam,  and  we  have  the  doc- 
trine of  eternal  punishment  still  to  tolerate,  but  to 
tolerate  as  God  has  to  do  it,  because  it  is  right,  and 
because  we  have  determined  it  for  ourselves  in  a 
way  far  more  just  to  complain  of  than  any  in  which 
it  has  been  determined  by  the  Almighty. 

Eternal  punishment,  thus  robbed  of  innovations, 
and  made  to  belong  to  a  s}^stem  of  which  God  is  the 
mere  Executive,  is  a  doctrine  that  has  really  sJiincd 
upon  our  planet  in  every  age  in  which  it  has  been 
rigidly  enforced.  Some  writer  has  set  it  down  as 
one  of  the  five  things  that  so  rapidly  expanded  the 
church  among  the  primitive  Fathers.  Religion 
languishes  where  the  fires  of  wrath  burn  low.  Let 
a  heretic  be  displaced,  and  his  mail  will  be  packed 
by  letters  inquiring  about  perdition.  There  is 
immense  force  bearing  upon  the  dam  of  final  retri- 
bution. 

And  though  men  may  say,  Is  fear  piety?  And 
though  we  may  exultantly  answer.  No ;  and  though 
we  may  significantly  quote  Christ,  who  declared,  "  He 
that  would  save  his  soul  shall  lose  it  ;  "  though  some- 
thing a  great  deal  higher  than  our  own  salvation  must 
draw,  before  we  can  be  changed  in  heart ;  and  though 
some  preachers  are  fools  enough  to  translate  this  into 
a  belief  that  preaching  the  terrors  of  the  law  is  of 
small  effect  for  propagating  the  gospel,  yet  the 
Bible  stands  up  as  a  great  monumental  refutation. 
Two-thirds  of  the  Bible  is  threat !     The  sinner,  when 


222  The  Hereafter.  [Book  V. 

a  sinner,  must  be  driven  by  a  sinner's  motives.  Two- 
thirds  of  a  sinner's  cult  is  fear.  When  a  sinner  says 
that  he  is  not  to  be  driven  to  Christ,  he  is  just 
brazening  his  wickedness.  That  is  the  way  he  will 
have  to  come.  And  though  an  age  of  law  will  not 
save,  just  as  an  eternity  of  law  will  not  save  the 
demons  in  the  Pit,  yet  it  is  only  because  nothing  will 
save.  "  Though  thou  bray  a  fool  in  a  mortar  with 
wheat  with  a  pestle,  yet  his  folly  will  not  depart  from 
him  "  (Prov.  xxvii.  22).  Yet  when  God  jchooses  to 
convert,  it  has  been  by  eternal  punishment  that  He 
has  oftenest  begun  to  deal  with  the  obdurate  im- 
penitent. 

When,  therefore,  ''  Hell  and  Heaven  "  become  the 
title  of  our  chapter,  we  mean  by  "  Heaven  "  that 
state  and  place  where  our  own  righteousness, 
restored  by  Christ,  shall  become  perfect  with  the 
Father,  and  by  *'  Hell,"  that  state  and  place  where, 
by  the  very  philosophy  of  sin,  we  become  incurably 
wicked. 

A  word  now  about  opposite  theories  of  Escha- 
tology,  and  then  a  chapter  more,  about  the  Millen- 
nium, and  we  go  on  to  another  division  of  our 
subject. 

I.  One  theory  is,  that  a  man  dies  and  there  is  no 
more  of  him.  A  convenient  corollary  to  this  is,  that 
there  is  no  God  ;  otherwise  Solomon's  words  would 
be  the  reply, — *' I  saw  the  Place  of  Judgment,  that 
wickedness  was  there,  and  the  Place  of  Righteous- 
ness, that  iniquity  was  there  "  (Ec.  iii.  16).  Solomon 
places  the  whole  thing  in  a  nutshell.     Either  "  God 


Chap.  III.]  Hell  and  Heaven,  223 

will  judge  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  "  (v.  17),  in 
which  case  there  must  be  a  hereafter,  or  there  is  no 
God  at  all,  a  conclusion  that  this  globe  so  little 
stands  by,  that  the  few  of  Christendom  who  do, 
make  it  easier  to  decry  all  the  forms  in  which  men 
would  deny  perdition. 

2.  The  second  theory  is,  that  all  die  and  go  to 
Heaven.  This  is  the  old  fashioned  Universalism. 
It  is  rapidly  fading  out.  It  tallies  too  abominably 
ill  with  two-thirds  of  Scripture.  Moreover,  it  is 
against  nature.  That  I  can  take  the  meat  out  of 
the  oyster,  spend  life  in  a  debauch,  take  the  patri- 
mony of  my  fathers,  exhaust  the  constitution  that 
has  come  down  to  me  through  my  blood  from  a 
rigidly  careful  and  right  living  ancestral  tribe,  and 
then,  when  the  last  thrill  of  pleasure  has  been  spe'nt, 
put  a  pistol  to  my  head  and  go  to  Heaven,  is  too 
thin  a  plan  for  the  Builder  of  Worlds,  and  only  shows 
the  length  that  may  be  gone  in  scouting  vengeance. 

3.  The  third  theory  is  better.  It  involves  pun- 
ishment. It  demands  a  resurrection.  It  looks 
upon  the  unnumbered  worlds,  and  suspects  a  change 
of  residence.  It  delights  in  what  it  insists  on  as 
'■^adequate  retribution^  It  supposes  that  we  will 
travel  through  the  long  ages,  and,  as  long  as  we 
transgress,  suffer,  from  one  wild  home  to  another, 
the  full  reward  of  our  iniquity.  But,  wearied  down 
with  sinning,  and  learning,  as  God  means  us  to 
learn,  the  horrible  iniquity  of  our  nature,  we  will 
give  in  at  last,  and  all  reach,  in  the  ages,  eternal 
blessedness. 


2  24  ^^^  Hereafter.  [Book  v. 

The  difficulty  of  this  is,  that  it  is  baseless.  We 
have  not  the  slenderest  warrant  for  it.  The  ''  spirits 
in  prison  "  (i  Pet.  iii.  19),  are  simply  sinners  in  the 
prison  house  of  sin ;  cut  out  that  text,  which  is 
explained  by  one  soon  after  about  *'  them  that  are 
dead  "  (i  Pet.  iv.  6),  and  there  is  not  a  syllable  that 
even  glances  that  way  in  either  Testament.  More- 
over, it  is  against  nature.  If  we  die  in  our  sins 
(Jo.  viii.  21),  and  thus  put  behind  us  the  possibili- 
ties of  the  gospel  (i  Jo.  v.  16),  how  can  sin  do  what 
is  imputed  to  it?  How  can  it  weary  itself  out? 
How  can  it  tame  itself  down  ?  And  how  can  it  do 
this  in  the  face  of  the  opposite  statements  of  the 
Bible  (Ec.  viii.  8,  Is.  viii.  20,  21),  and  in  face  of  the 
fact  that  sin  is  an  incurable  deficiency  of  righteous- 
ness. 

4.  The  fourth  theory  resorts  to  annihilation.  The 
lost  sinner  sleeps  in  his  grave  and  never  wakes 
again.  This  theory  is  growing  rapidly.  '  The 
world  rids  itself  of  the  apostate  man.  The  saint 
rises  and  is  blessed  and  comes  back  to  people  our 
globe,  but  the  damned  are  wiped  out.'  Immense 
printing  presses  are  spreading  these  ideas.  What 
do  we  need  of  sinners  ?  Why  may  not  God  rid 
Himself  of  their  weight?  And,  inasmuch  as  this 
amounts  to  an  eternal  punishment,  why  may  not 
this  answer  to  the  fate  of  being  banished  forever 
from  Jehovah's  presence? 

The  thing  will  not  do. 

In  the  first  place,  it  crosses  squarely  important 
Scriptures.     There  is  to  be   "  a  resurrection  of  the 


Chap.  III.J  Hell  and  Heaven.  225 

dead,  both  of  the  just  and  of  the  unjust  "  (Acts 
xxiv.  15,  see  also  Matt.  xxv.  32).  In  the  second 
place,  it  ruins  justice.  Annihilation,  at  best,  is 
dreamless.  I  have  had  my  swing,  with  nothing 
consciously  to  pay.  Make  me  sure  of  no  other 
retribution,  and  I  can  expend  the  millions  left  me, 
and  coin  the  health  of  my  fathers  into  brutal  life, 
and,  when  the  last  check  is  drawn,  and  the  last  draft 
that  can  be  met  has  been  made  upon  my  senses, 
then  I  can  banish  them  at  a  stroke,  and  sink  to  my 
rest  of  total  insensibility.  The  world  can  not  be 
built  that  way.  It  would  take  few  of  that  sort  to 
wreck  it  and  clean  it  out.  The  world  is  kept  alive 
by  Hell;  and  there  is  no  form  of  nothingness  that 
the  sinner  dreads  like  eternal  penalty. 

5.  The  fifth  theory  modifies  the  fourth,  and  we 
are  frank  to  say  is  the  best  Universalist  idea.  Yet, 
on  that  very  account,  it  is  the  most  dangerous  ;  it 
can  argue  from  the  greatest  number  of  Scriptures. 
It  argues,  like  the  other,  that  annihilation  is  the 
eternal  penalty ;  but  then  it  argues,  unlike  the 
other,  that  we  are  not  to  escape  the  full  reward  of 
our  sins.  We  are  all  to  lie  down  and  rise  again. 
The  righteous  are  to  ascend  to  Heaven,  and  the 
wicked  are  at  once  to  begin  their  fearful  punish- 
ment. This  punishment  is  to  be  overwhelming. 
It  is  to  be  fully  up  to  the  measure  of  our  wicked- 
ness. Nay,  it  is  to  overrun  it.  It  is  to  exact  the 
last  farthing  of  our  guilt,  and  sop  up  all  possible 
vengeance  in  its  unspeakable  agonies  ;  and  then, 
after  every  legitimate  award,  just  wipe  out  the  sin- 


226  The  Hereafter,  [Book  V. 

ner,  and  leave  the  stage  for  the  abode  of  the 
righteous. 

This  would  claim  to  be  the  whole  of  wrath,  with- 
out the  element  of  eternity. 

But  how  possibly  can  it  be  conceived? 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  totally  against  Scripture. 
The  Scriptures  say,  "  These  shall  go  away  into  eter- 
nal punishment  "  (Matt.  xxv.  46).  Why  turn  this 
away  in  any  conceivable  degree,  and  not  also,  as  in 
the  same  sentence,  **  eternal  life"?  Mark  tells  us  of 
eternal  **  sinning"  (see  Revision,  Mar.  iii.  29).  We 
hear  of  being  "-  tormented  day  and  night  for  ever  and 
ever "  (Rev.  xx.  10).  The  smallest  documentary 
fidelity  will  bulk  right  athwart  the  path  of  any  con- 
ceivable comment  that  will  annul  perpetual  penalty. 

In  the  second  place,  reason.  How  is  a  soul  to 
change  anything  by  sinning  ?  And  if  the  great 
threatening  is  SIN  (Mar.  iii.  29),  how  can  the  worst 
and  last  sin,  that  which  is  the  ripest  and  most  invet- 
erate, cure  itself  by  annihilation,  that  is,  flout  in  the 
face  of  the  law  the  most  perfect  escape  by  a  con- 
venient sinking  into  rest? 

The  animus  is  too  evident.  There  is  much  that 
is  terrible  in  that  excruciating  wrath,  but  the  whis- 
per in  Eve's  ear  comes  in  at  the  end,  ''Ye  shall  not 
surely  die"  (Gen.  iii.  4).  The  soul  yearns  for  immor- 
tality :  but,  rather  than  suffer,  it  will  court  the  oppo- 
site. Our  sin's  great  law  of  incurable  damnation  is 
what  its  victims  are  shrinking  from  in  all  these  theo- 
ries of  universal  deliverance. 


Chap.  IV.]  The  Mille7inmm.  .       227 


CHAPTER   IV. 

THE     MILLENNIUM. 

Faith  in  an  imaginary  promise,  if  that  promise 
covers  blessings  for  which  we  are  to  labor  and  to 
pray,  cuts  the  roots  of  endeavor,  and,  therefore,  is  to 
be  mourned  over  as  a  real  calamity.  Faith  that  the 
Christian  will  persevere,  is  of  this  character.  There 
is  no  such  promise  in  the  word  of  God,  and,  of 
course,  the  faith  that  there  is,  impairs  that  much 
motive,  and  releases  that  much  guard  over  our  life 
and  character.  The  witness  of  the  Spirit  and  a  call 
to  the  ministry  and  justification  by  faith  witness  the 
same  effect — a  lodging  of  the  soul  upon  phantoms ; 
that  is,  when  these  blessings  are  superstitiously  con- 
ceived, a  *' witness"  that  excuses  us  from  morals, 
and  a  ''call"  that  excuses  us  from  fitness,  and  a 
"faith"  that  excuses  us  from  piety;  and  this  is 
eminently  the  result,  on  a  grander  scale,  of  what  is 
called  the  doctrine  of  a  Millennium.  If  we  are  sure 
of  the  triumph  of  the  gospel,  and  God  never  meant 
to  convey  any  such  dream,  it  is  a  pity  ;  for  the  very 
triumph  supposed  is  the  work  of  the  Church,  and 
belongs  to  those  secret  things  that  the  Father  keeps 
within  His  own  knowledge. 

It  will  be  well  to  tell  what  the  Millennium  is,  and, 
second,  its  reasons,  and,  third,  their  entire  insuf- 
ficiency; leaving,  as  the  thing  to  be  believed,  our 
more  salutary  confidence  that  the  Judgment  might 
be  to-morrow,  and  that  we  cannot  possibly  tell  what 


228  The  Hereafter.  [Book  V. 

will  be  the  success  of  the  gospel   to  the  end  of  the 
world. 

1.  As  to  what  is  the  Millennium,  it  is  sufficient  to 
say  that  it  is  a  period  of  entire  prosperity  of  the  gos- 
pel for  a  thousand  years.  Men  differ  :  and  we  might 
multiply,  in  successive  pages,  different  forms  of  the 
belief.  Either  Christ  is  to  come  and  create  a  Mil- 
lennium by  His  presence,  or  He  is  to  hold  off  and 
grant  the  Millennium  before  His  Advent;  or  the 
Millennium  is  to  be  vastly  extended  and  occupy  ages 
with  its  wealth, — it  matters  very  little :  if  the  whole 
notion  be  false,  its  particular  form  can  easily  be 
excused. 

2.  And,  as  to  the  reasons  of  such  a  notion,  they 
are,  definitely,  two  : — first,  the  promises  of  the  Bible 
that  the  church  shall  have  great  prosperity,  and, 
second,  a  definite  chapter  (Rev.  xx.),  which  gives  a 
promise  to  the  church  of  a  reign  for  a  thousand 
years.  If  the  mountain  of  the  Lord's  house  is  to  be 
established  on  the  top  of  the  mountains,  and  all 
nations  are  to  flow  unto  it  (Is.  ii.  2),  and  if  both 
epoch  and  duration  seem  to  be  furnished  by  John 
(Rev.  XX.),  where,  it  may  be  asked,  can  be  the  diffi- 
culty? Is  it  not  a  trifling  with  the  Bible  to  take  the 
downright  verse,  "  They  lived  and  reigned  with 
Christ  a  thousand  years  "  (v.  4),  and  say,  we  know 
absolutely  nothing,  and  to  invite  the  church  to  an 
uncheered  missionary  task,  when  there  is  this  divine 
assurance  of  the  success  of  her  labors? 

3.  But,  before  we  go  off  on  such  confident  speech, 
let  us  ask,  what  has  been  the  result  of  such  definite 


Chap.  IV.]  The  MillenniMm.  229 

expressions?  Christ  said  to  Peter,  '' On  this  rock 
I  will  build  my  church."  He  said  to  his  disciples, 
"This  is  my  body."  He  said  to  the  church, 
'' Whosoever's  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  to 
them."  We  have  to  put  a  guard  on  these  but  once 
uttered  expressions.  Peter  declared  that  Christ 
went  and  preached  to  the  spirits  in  prison.  Might 
we  not  be  sure  that  great  doctrines  for  the  church 
would  not  be  trusted  to  a  single  utterance  ? 

Moreover,  definitely,  as  to  John,  why  take  sud- 
denly an  accurate  number,  and  make  it  mean  posi- 
tively a  thousand  years?  How  we  are  warped  by 
our  fancies  !  John's  book  fairly  bristles  with  arith- 
metic. Suppose  we  begin  to  take  it  literally!  His 
*'  three  gates  "  and  his  ''  seven  lamps  "  and  his  thou- 
sand times  ten  thousand  !  Suppose  we  take  Christ 
literally!  (Lu.  vi.  29;  Jo.  i.  51  ;  Lu.  x.  18;  Matt, 
xviii.  22).  The  Revelation  in  our  esteem  is  a  pic- 
tured gospel.  When  it  speaks  of  the  seals,  it  means 
the  way  man  disciplines  himself  (Rev.  v.  i)  ;  when 
it  speaks  of  the  trumpets,  the  way  God  disciplines 
man  (Rev.  viii.  2);  when  it  speaks  of  the  vials,  the 
way  God  curses  the  wicked  (Rev.  xv.  7).  Long 
didactic  Scriptures  in  other  books  give  place  at  last 
to  a  painted  vision.  The  beast  and  the  harlot  and 
Babylon  are  the  power  of  wickedness,  varying  its 
illustration  as  Christ  varies  His  when  He  speaks  of 
the  Church  (Matt,  xi'ii.  31-33).  The  olive  trees 
(Rev.  xi.  3-12)  and  the  woman  (Rev.  xii.  1-4)  and 
the  two  witnesses  (Rev.  xi.  3)  are  His  own  blessed 
kingdom.       When,   therefore,   John    comes  to    the 


230  The  Hereafter,  [Book  V. 

"thousand  years,"  we  believe  he  has  no  historic 
sense,  but  a  kindred  picturing.  Just  as  his  Master 
had  described  the  seed,  and  just  as,  of  opposite 
signification,  he  had  introduced  the  leaven,  so  John 
pictures  the  undulations  in  the  life  of  a  church.  It 
rises  for  a  time,  and  then  sinks  and  sinks  more 
rapidly  than  it  rises.  It  sprouts  as  a  mustard  seed, 
and  has  wonderful  growth  (Matt.  xiii.  32),  and  then 
it  corrupts  under  the  leaven  of  wickedness  (v.  33). 
So  John,  under  more  stately  rhetoric,  pictures  one 
of  these  great  advances.  A  province  nourishes  a 
church  for  a  thousand  years.  The  symbols  are  com- 
plete. God  binds  Satan  ;  shuts  him  upon  him- 
self;  seals  him  from  interfering:  by  which  I  under- 
stand that  He  teaches  His  church  to  resist  him,  and 
drives  him  out.  If  a  literal  thousand  is  meant,  why 
is  it  not  meant  in  all  the  forest  of  ciphering  in  the 
other  visions  (Rev.  v.  6;  viii.  7-12  ;  ix.  16)?  Satan 
returns  again  (Rev.  xx.  7).  And  thus  in  long  waves 
the  oscillation  is  kept  up  (Ps.  Ixxxix.  30-36),  the 
corruption  of  the  rich  (Ps.  Iv.  19),  and  the  evangelic 
zation  of  the  poor  and  wicked  (Matt.  viii.  11-12). 

If  anybody  asks.  What  right  have  we  to  all  this  ? 
we  introduce  another  argument.  We  say,  A  distinct 
inillenniiini  is  impossible.  And  let  me  discharge  on 
the  spot  all  necessity  of  choosing  its  form.  No  mat- 
ter whose  millennium  we  trample  on,  it  may  be  a 
thousand  revolutions  of  the  sun,  it  may  be  a  thou- 
sand years,  each  day  of  all  the  years  counting  for  a 
cycle,  it  may  be  a  millennium  with  an  Advent  first, 
or,  just  as  long  a  millennium  with  an   Advent  after- 


Chap.  IV.]  The  Mzllennmm.  2^1 

ward,  we  do  not  care.  No  millennium  can  stand 
against  a  certain  argument.  And  we  beg  Millenna- 
rians  to  answer  :  not  to  bruit  their  theories  till  they 
have  replied  :  for  the  argument  is  the  fairest  possible, 
and  I  mean  the  downright  proof  that  there  can  posi- 
tively be  no  promised  millennium  whatever. 

And  the  argument  is  this:  How  can  there  be  a 
millennium  if  I  am  warned  that  there  may  be  the 
final  Judgment  any  hour?  Minds  seem  to  have 
been  impervious  to  this.  They  have  doted  upon  a 
revealed  period,  and  considered  it  absolutely  prom- 
ised, and  yet  have  been  warning  their  friends  to 
get  ready  for  the  trumpet  clang  any  hour!  I  won- 
der that  infidels  have  not  laid  hold  of  this.  The 
solution  is,  that  there  is  no  millennium  in  the  Bible. 
We  must  go  further  of  course.  There  is  no  proph- 
ecy in  the  New  Testament.  The  Railroad  has 
cleared  its  track.  There  are  no  encumbering  vati- 
cinations. The  Judgment  may  appear  at  any  mo- 
ment. We  believe  in  certain  subjunctives.  *'  There 
are  some  standing  here  who  MAY  not  taste  of  death  " 
(Matt.  xvi.  28)  ;  "  this  generation  MAY  not  pass " 
(Matt.  xxiv.  34).  Why  zvas  it  not  the  future  ?  We 
know  the  doubts  of  grammarians  ;  but  our  innermost 
reason  wrestles  with  them.  Christ  could  not  have 
meant,  "There  be  some  standing  here  who  shall  not 
taste  of  death  "  (E.  V.  and  Re.),  for  the  gorgeous 
unfolding  was  to  be  of  the  final  Judgment.  But  He 
means  what  precludes  any  millennium,  I  mean,  any 
promise  of  it ;  He  means,  what  other  passages  just 
as  thoroughly  warn   us  of ;    He  means,  what  would 


232  The  Hereafter.  [Book  V. 

be  trifling  if  there  was  a  long  millennial  duration  ; 
He  means,  what  would  stand  if  these  sentences  had 
to  yield, — that  there  can  be  no  historic  prophecies 
in  the  New  Testament  (and  there  are  none  that  do 
not  easily  explain  themselves  away :  see  author's 
Com.,  Rom.  chap,  xi),  for  that  ''there  be  some 
standing  here  who  MAY  not  taste  of  death  till  they 
see  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in  his  kingdom"  (Matt, 
xvi.  28). 

To  the  other  consideration,  that  the  promises 
seem  to  point  to  the  prosperity  of  Zion  (Dan.  ii.  34, 
Is.  ii.  2),  I  answer,  that  those  are  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Those,  too,  were  gloriously  fulfilled.  But 
when  Christ  had  crowned  them  by  coming  in  the 
flesh,  and  rare  Providences  had  promulgated  His 
Advent,  high  colorings  after  that  are  no  longer  in 
the  brush.  Who  can  tell  whether  the  Church,  once 
seated,  was  most  encouraged,  or  most  warned  ?  Her 
whole  future  was  of  that  class  of  fact  which  the 
Father  kept  in  His  own  power.  He  said,  "  Lo,  I 
am  with  you  alway  ;  "  but  it  was  ominous  of  a  most 
precarious  demand,  viz.,  that  He  was  to  have  some- 
body to  be  with.  The  Great  Harp  of  life  is  struck 
sometimes  with  most  ominous  sorrow  ;  for  I  remem- 
ber nowhere  in  the  New  Testament  where  it  says 
that  the  world  shall  be  entirely  converted,  but  I 
do  remember  that  most  afflictive  appeal,  "  Never- 
theless, when  the  Son  of  Man  cometh,  shall  He  find 
faith  on  the  earth  ?  "  (Lu.  xviii.  8). 

Bright  indications  exist  that  we  may  prosper ;  but 
we  must  prosper  by  the  efforts  of  the  Church.    That 


Chap.  IV.]  The  Millennium,  233 

is  the  method  of  the  divine  encouragement.  So 
may  it  continue.  He  pours  grace  into  us.  And, 
then,  the  chapter  on  the  thousand  years  answers  its 
design,  unfolding  to  the  patience  of  the  Church  how 
the  Church  rises  by  diligent  work,  and  how  it  sinks 
again  by  letting  loose  the  adversary. 


BOOK  VI. 

THE   CHURCH   AND   ITS   ORDINANCES. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE   CHURCH,    A   VISIBLE   BODY. 

A  CONCORDANCE  shows  that  the  word  church  is 
used  in  the  New  Testament  one  hundred  and  six 
times,  and  that  only  in  twelve  of  these  instances 
can  it  be  made  to  mean  the  invisible  body  of  Christ. 

It  is  a  vast  pity  that  the  dozen  texts  should  have 
been  made  to  over-ride  near  eight  times  that  number, 
and  that  men  should  be  made  careless  of  the  claims 
of  the  actual  Church  by  spiritualizing  the  word,  and 
making  the  Church,  with  all  its  precious  ordinances, 
succumb  to  the  sense  of  its  being  the  hidden  "  body 
of   true   believers"    (Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,   v.   i.,  p. 

134). 

Baptism  might  be  disposed  of  just  as  summarily. 
Twelve  times  it  means  conversion,  and  sixty-two 
times  it  means  an  ordinance.  And  so  of  circum- 
cision ;  baptism  and  circumcision  have  about  equal 
right  to  be  considered  neither  circumcision  nor  bap- 
tism. Circumcision  means  circumcision  fifty-four 
times,  and  conversion,  possibly,  eight.  The  Quakers 
are   perhaps   more  right    in    following  these   fewer 


Chap.  II.]     The  Chtcrch,  an  Ordinance,  235 

instances,  and  baptizing  nobody,  than  those  are  who 
spiritualize  such  a  thing  as  the  Church.  The  Papists 
are  at  one  extreme,  and,  alas  for  the  great  body  of 
Reformers,  we  are  beginning  to  be  at  the  other. 
The  great  modern  laxity  is  independence  of  the 
Church.  And  as  the  destruction  of  its  working 
name  takes  out  from  under  the  stress  of  very 
solemn  commands  the  mass  of  our  Protestant  people, 
they  aim  for  the  hid  church  rather  than  for  that 
which  is  visible,  and,  like  all  other  impenitent  pur- 
poses, it  helps  them  to  desert  God's  house,  and  to 
repel  the  ministrations  that  might  have  brought 
them  to  consider. 

It  is  sad  that  hardly  has  God  helped  us,  and  got 
us  out  from  under  the  Pope,  than,  as  in  all  cases 
since  the  Fall,  error  sets  foot  at  once,  and,  if  pos- 
sible, by  misunderstanding  the  Reform,  and  under- 
valuing that  the  overvaluing  of  which  cost  the 
previous  deficiency 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  CHURCH,  ITSELF  AN   ORDINANCE. 

It  hardly  can  be  considered  possible  that  creatures 
should  know  they  were  created,  and  not  pray  to 
their  Creator.  And  yet  that  does  not  forbid  it  to 
be  true  that  prayer  is  an  ordinance,  and  that  it  is  in 
this  way  additionally  blessed  as  being  a  compliance 
with  a  divine  command. 

We  are  not  sure  that  baptism  was  not  an  inven- 
tion.    At  the  very  least  proselyte  baptism  is  never 


236  CJmrch  and  Ordinances.        [Book  v. 

commanded,  and  the  Old  Testament  may  be 
searched  in  vain  for  any  warrant  for  that  which, 
however,  beyond  doubt  was  an  actual  celebration. 

Here,  accordingly,  is  a  case  in  point,  as  though 
prayer  had  been  invented  by  man,  and  adopted 
afterward  as  an  ordinance  of  the  Most  High. 

The  like  might  have  occurred  in  respect  to  the 
Church.  Its  being  formed  was  so  sure  to  be  the 
case;  its  being  "called  out"  was  so  natural;  its 
communion  would  be  so  sweet  ;  its  co-operations  so 
potent,  and  so  sure  to  be  set  on  foot,  like  all  other 
measures  of  the  division  of  labor;  and  its  confes- 
sions of  the  truth,  so  signal  and  so  strengthening  to 
the  soul,  that  we  know  not  which  was  first,  God's 
establishing  the  Church,  or  man's  inventing  it. 
And  therefore  we  do  not  impeach  those  who  give  a 
wrong  definition  to  the  word,  because  they  say  that 
the  body  of  true  believers  would  have  themselves 
found  out  the  Church,  and  would  have  themselves 
established  it  as  a  means  of  their  communion. 

Grant  that  that  had  been  the  case,  God  undoubt- 
edly adopted  it  as  His  own  on  the  top  of  Sinai. 
Grant  that  baptism  was  an  invention.  Christ  un- 
doubtedly adopted  it,  and  gave  it  as  a  command. 

And  this  is  all  we  are  insisting  on  in  respect  to 
the  Church. 

If  prayer  is  so  natural  that  men  began  to  pray 
before  they  were  commanded,  all  the  more  are  they 
under  obligation  to  pray.  And  if  men  formed,  like 
a  debating  society,  an  early  church,  all  the  more 
when  Sinai  takes  it  up,  and  still  infinitely  more  when 


Chap.  III.]     Church  of  Certain  Form.  237 

Christ  restores  it  and  brings  it  into  final  shape,  is  it 
a  most  solemn  ordinance  ;  and  we  may  look  in  it 
for  two  blessings,  first,  for  that  of  a  naturally  good 
thing,  and,  secondly,  for  that  of  a  commanded  obli- 
gation ;  so  that  joining  a  church,  and  helping  a 
church,  and,  if  there  be  none,  establishing  a  church, 
and,  if  there  be  many,  choosing  a  church,  and,  if  it 
be  in  error,  reforming  a  church,  and,  when  we  are 
converted,  making  our  confession  in  a  church,  are 
all  naturally  good  things,  but  then,  much  more  than 
that,  are  all  commanded  of  God,  and  all  not  to  be 
omitted  without  harm  and  wrong. 

CHAPTER    III. 

THE   CHURCH,    OF   A   CERTAIN   FORM. 

If  Baptism,  whether  invented  or  not,  was  seized 
upon  at  last  as  a  divine  ordinance,  it  is  trifling  to 
suppose  that  it  had  no  form.  To  throw  books  at  a 
man,  or  to  overturn  him  on  the  floor,  and  call  that 
Baptism,  is  a  supposition  that  shows  that  Baptism 
has  to  be  defined,  and  the  like  must  be  settled  upon 
as  true  in  respect  to  the  Church  of  the  Redeemer. 

He  gave  it  a  certain  form. 

The  Papist,  therefore,  is  not  too  strict  about  this ; 
nor  is  the  Episcopalian.  In  fact  they  are  not  strict 
enough.  When  the  Papists  create  a  Cardinal,  or 
the  Episcopalians  an  Archbishop,  they  do  not  pre- 
tend that  these  are  of  a  Bible  form.  When  they 
command  priests  to  be  celibate,  they  confess  that  it 
is  by  the  will  of  the  Church,  and  that  Peter,  their 


238  Church  and  Ordinances.        [Book  V. 

great  Founder,  was  a  married  man.  And  they  tell 
us  carefully  that  the  Church  could  revise  that  meas- 
ure, and,  on  a  change  of  times,  could  order  differ- 
ently. They  are  not  in  the  least  too  strict  in  saying 
that  there  is  a  certain  order  in  the  Church,  and  that 
good  people  should  find  and  follow  it.  That  is  not 
the  difficulty.  The  difficulty  is  that  the  Church, 
being  an  ordinance,  is  carried  up  among  the  ordin- 
ances of  Heaven,  till  it  outranks  almost  every  other. 
Think  of  outranking  such  a  thing  as  piety  !  There 
are  three  things  commanded  :  order,  doctrine  and 
personal  possession  of  the  gospel.  This  last  is  to 
overshadow  every  other.  The  insistence  upon  order 
is  simply  for  these  other  two.  The  Catholic  reverses 
this :  not  by  becoming  too  strict  in  order,  I  mean 
too  careful  in  finding  it  out,  but  by  erecting  it  into 
a  separate  superstition.  The  order  that  was  to 
shelter  doctrine,  and,  under  divers  arrangements  for 
nurture,  nurse  the  saints,  first  of  all  makes  light  of 
doctrine,  and  then,  in  practical  effect,  obscures  and 
smothers  piety.  Insist  upon  order  too  much,  and 
the  result  has  always  been  to  make  order  produce 
piety,  and  to  make  the  Church  a  great  seducer,  in- 
viting people  to  her  feet,  with  the  direct  offer  of 
securing  the  soul's  salvation. 

Now  it  is  intensely  interesting  to  see  that  the  pre- 
cisely opposite  error,  like  the  Dutch  mills,  produces 
the  same  result.  The  professor  who  teaches  the 
doctrine  that  the  Church  are  "  true  believers,"  may 
be  imagined  to  honor  saintship.  But  what  we  are 
talking  about  is  not  saintship,  but  the  Church.    The 


Chap.  III.]       Church  of  Certain  Form,  239 

Apostles  in  almost  a  hundred  times  specify  the 
Church  as  an  outward  body.  Our  Lord  ordained 
it.  His  disciples  planted  it.  They  claimed  for  it 
ascension  gifts  (Eph.  iv.  11).  If  we  take  the  flesh 
and  blood  gift  of  actual  preachers,  and  the  mechan- 
ically described  appointment  of  a  particular  order, 
and  release  it  all  by  what  is  **  invisible,''  we  may 
think  we  are  promoting  piety,  but  we  are  positively 
counter-working  Christ. 

Let  us  suppose  a  case.  A  man  finds  his  preacher 
uninteresting.  There  are  a  thousand  books  or  ser- 
mons that  he  can  read  with  more  impression  by  his 
fire  at  home.  Train  him  under  the  new  evangel. 
Make  him  believe  that  ^^ the  CJuirch''  is  the  saints. 
Persuade  him  of  the  fact  that  it  takes  on  a  form  at 
pleasure.  Instil  in  him  the  notion  that  there  is  no 
'■'■order''  in  the  Word  of  God,  and,  to  say  the  very 
least,  you  cut  one  nerve  that  would  move  him,  on  a 
winter's  day,  to  do  what  a  Catholic  would  tremble 
to  omit, — go  to  the  sanctuary.  You  leave  him 
either  to  argue  out  the  need  of  a  Church  by  himself, 
as,  for  example,  that  others  will  stay  at  home,  as, 
for  example,  that  the  Church  will  perish,  as,  for  ex- 
ample, that  if  the  minister  is  not  the  best,  saints 
must  stay  in  the  pews  lest  the  wicked  still  faster  be 
thinned  away,  or  else  you  give  him,  in  his  own 
disastrous  case,  proof  of  the  fact  that  such  a  defini- 
tion of  the  Church  is  altogether  evil.  Moreover 
you  move  him  to  a  search  that  would  bring  out 
the  fact  that  Christ  thought  out  these  things  from  the 
very  beginning ;  that  the  Church  is  a  positive  ordi- 


240  Church  and  Ordinances.         [Book  V. 

nance  ;  that  its  form  is  wonderfully  settled  in  the 
brief  sheets  of  Scripture ;  that  he  is  bound  to  go  to 
it ;  that  he  is  to  get  ready  and  join  it ;  that  he  is  to 
enter  upon  its  work  ;  that  he  is  to  engage  in  its 
communion  ;  that  the  opposite  idea  is  filling  the 
world  with  indifferents  ;  that  the  fathers  stay  away, 
and  the  sons  follow  ;  that  we  are  actually  stripping 
our  sons  of  the  very  ordinances  that  made  us  Chris- 
tians; that  our  apology  need  not  continue  to  be,  an 
indifferent  preacher,  but  any  preacher  at  all  if  we 
care  not  to  hear  him  ;  and  as  notoriously  it  is  harder 
sometimes  to  go  to  church  than  always,  practically  we 
need  never  go  to  church,  and  often  actually  we 
never  do,  and  a  family  of  saints  perish  out  under  this 
false  idea. 

Need  it  be  wondered  at  that  we  bitterly  oppose 
this  trend  toward  the   *'  invisible  "  ? 

And  see  how  the  more  practical  theory  settles 
questions  as  to  the  differences  of  belief.  The  Church 
is  a  divine  ordinance.  The  ordinance  has  a  specific 
form.  There  is  a  true  church,  therefore,  and  we  of 
the  Presbyterian  polity  imagine  that  we  possess  it. 
If  we  were  Catholics  we  would  scout  and  fume  at 
Baptists,  and  at  all  other  shades  of  Congregational 
believers.  But  as  we  are  Protestants,  we  put  all  our 
interests  in  a  row — Piety,  Doctrine  and  Order.  We 
put  our  Order  last.  We  insist  upon  Piety,  and  would 
ex-communicate  a  man  who  distinctly  violated  it. 
We  put  our  Doctrine  second,  and  bear  with  any 
church  that  possesses  Piety.  We  put  our  Order 
third.     And  now,  as  it  is  a  matter  of  most   varying 


Chap.  III.]       Church  of  Certain  Form,  241 

belief,  we  expect  differences.  We  are  arranged  for 
that  sort  of  recognition.  There  is  but  one  true 
church  ;  but  as  it  would  be  Utopian  to  suppose  that 
all  men  would  find  it,  we  are  willing  to  be  modest 
about  the  certainty  of  our  having  found  it  ourselves. 
We  are  willing  to  call  that  the  true  church  which  we 
are  all  trying  to  discover.  We  are  willing  to  con- 
done polity  a  fortiori  if  we  condone  doctrine.  And 
though  the  expression,  ''The  True  Church,"  may 
lawfully  mean  that  church  which  the  disciples 
sketched  under  the  hand  of  the  Redeemer,  yet  the 
true  church,  like  the  true  gospel,  which  perhaps  no 
man  can  exactly  preach,  means  that  fasciculus  of 
sects  which  are  showing  piety  in  their  lives,  and  are 
arranging  the  best  they  know  how,  the  order  that 
was  appointed. 

Let  us  go  back  now  over  our  course. 

The  Papist,  deifying  the  Church,  and  seeking  the 
inward  in  the  outward,  is  in  danger  of  excusing 
piety,  and  making  the  inward  life  flow  out  of  the 
forms  of  his  religion.  That  Protestant  who  decries 
the  Church,  seeking  the  outward  in  the  inward,  prac- 
tically excuses  its  existence  altogether  ;  makes  it  the 
'*  body  of  Christ ;  "  rejects  it  as  the  command  of 
Christ  ;  destroys  it  at  a  stroke  as  a  thing  visible  ; 
leaves  it,  if  he  likes  ;  chooses  none,  if  he  prefers  ; 
chooses  the  wrong  one,  even  if  it  be  further  off ;  and 
has  been  actually  instructed  in  the  belief  that  there 
is  no  church  that  has  been  ex  expresso  the  order  of 
the  Master. 

What  chance  has  that  man's  family  ?    What  began 


242        •       ChtircJi  and  Ordinances.        [Book  V. 

as  a  belief,  ends  as  an  indifference.  The  father 
stays  away,  and  the  sons  never  go.  That  is  a  thing 
that  is  painfully  evident  in  our  Protestant  regions  of 
the  earth.  And  it  is  high  time  to  ask,  whether  the 
Papist,  racing  to  Mass,  is  at  any  wider  extreme  than 
the  Protestant  deserting  his  worship:  and  whether 
both  are  not  sacrificing  piety,  the  Papist  by  looking 
for  it  in  the  outward  form,  and  the  Protestant  by 
leaving  himself  no  form  to  which  to  look,  but  boldly 
robbing  his  sons  of  the  grand  ascension  gifts  (i  Cor. 
xii.  28)  that  were  made  much  of  by  his  great 
Redeemer. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  CHURCH,   A  REPUBLIC. 

To  constitute  a  government,  there  must  be  a  peo- 
ple and  a  governor.  To  constitute  a  republic,  there 
must  be  a  people,  who  possess  the  sovereignty,  and 
officers  and  legislative  bodies  elected  by  those  peo- 
ple. Many  churches  are  republics,  and  claim  to 
derive  their  government  from  the  word  of  God. 

CHAPTER  V. 

MEMBERS  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

The  sovereign  people  in  that  republic  which  is 
called  the  Church,  are  the  church  members,  not  the 
citizens  generally.  The  expression  *'  Members  of  the 
CJuircJi "  is  not  an  expression  of  the  sacred  record. 
It  is  a  foolish  perplexity,  therefore,  which  is  battled 


Chap.  V.]       Members  of  the  Chtu^ch.  24.^ 

over  so  often  among  Christians,  whether  baptized 
children  are  members  of  the  Church.  As  the  term 
itself  is  an  invention,  and  not  inspired,  baptized 
children  are  members  of  the  Church  exactly  as  we 
choose  to  say  so.  In  other  words,  if  we  frame  our 
definition  to  include  these  wards  of  our  Redeemer, 
well  and  good  ;  but  we  soon  have  to  explain  that 
they  are  not  full  members,  and  as  the  term  has  not 
a  particle  of  Scriptural  force,  it  is  a  question  whether 
there  is  any  value  of  such  an  extension  of  the  expres- 
sion. Of  full  members  we  wish  to  consider,  first, 
their  effect  upon  the  Church,  and  second,  the  effect 
of  the  Church  upon  them. 

I.  The  ultimate  control  of  the  Church  is  by  its 
members.  By  the  very  force  of  this  they  can  unite 
with  them  in  any  election  the  body  of  the  people. 
It  is  the  very  right  of  their  sovereignty  to  say  who 
shall  vote.  To  hold  ni  tJicsi  therefore  that  only 
communicants  shall  vote  for  ministers,  is  quite 
untenable.  It  is  of  the  nature  of  communicants' 
sovereignty  to  make  it  different. 

And  we  can  say  more  than  this.  Sovereignty, 
once  borrowed,  can  be  retained.  People  who  have 
paid  for  a  church,  and  voted  for  its  purchase,  can- 
not suddenly  be  deprived.  And  even  for  a  minister, 
if  the  people  have  been  allowed  to  vote,  certain 
rights  have  passed.  They  should  not  be  needlessly 
trifled  with.  Such  extensions  of  the  franchise  are 
singularly  wise  ;  and,  if  in  any  case  they  become 
troublesome,  we  are  to  thread  the  evil  equitably 
back,  and  reach  thesovereignty  which  still  lies  at  the 


244  Church  and  Ordinances.        [Book  V. 

root,  by  steps  of  adjustment  made  necessary  by  what 
has  been  allowed. 

The  members  of  the  Church  are  sovereign,  but  it  is  a 
function  of  their  sovereignty  to  lend  their  sovereignty 
to  others,  and  if  this  confidence  is  abused,  they  must 
take  care,  in  recalling  what  they  have  lent,  not  to 
violate  the  contracts  which  they  have  virtually  made. 

2.  What  the  members  do  for  the  Church,  is  little 
and  strangely  contemptible,  as  compared  with  what 
the  Church  does  for  its  members.  It  is  a  wonderful 
institution.  It  is  so  wonderful  that  men  abuse  it, 
and  the  great  corruptions  of  the  Church  are  exaggera- 
tions by  the  Church  itself. 

(i)  It  is  impossible  to  banish  the  idea  that  joining 
the  Church  will  save  us  ;  (2)  and  then,  after  we  have 
joined,  to  simplify  her  nurture  :  to  make  her  sacra- 
ments like  prayer,  instead  of  matters  of  mystical 
efficacy  and  immediate  grace  ;  to  make  her  preach- 
ing like  tracts,  or  like  visits,  mere  methods  of  the 
truth  ;  or  to  make  her  priests  mere  ministers  of 
mercy,  not  mystic  engines  but  instruments  of  good, 
not  owing  these  influences  to  any  spell  or  charm,  but 
to  that  promised  blessing  of  God  which  is  ready  to 
attend  any  commanded  act  in  the  wide  circle  of  the 
ordinances  of  the  gospel. 

Putting  such  blunders  aside,  the  effects  of  the 
Church  are  singular.  First,  she  gives  a  splendid 
opportunity  for  confession.  Impenitence  is  so 
shrinking  and  so  ashamed,  that  an  open  profession 
has  a  wonderful  effect  upon  the  sinner  (Matt.  x.  32). 
Second,  she  gives  an  epoch   for  decision.     Impeni- 


Chap.  VI.]        Officers  of  the  Church.  245 

tence,  brought  to  terms  by  the  Church,  ceases  to 
procrastinate,  and  is  assisted  from  falling,  and  has  a 
mark  set  up  which  it  works  toward  with  most 
availing  interest.  Third,  she  gives  an  opportu- 
nity for  example.  We  are  all  so  sinful  that  each 
man  by  himself  would  have  a  very  confounding 
influence  ;  but  rallied  in  a  church,  the  whole  has  a 
feeble  light,  and  that  is  the  best  that  we  can  do  in 
support  of  our  religion.  Fourth,  it  combines  our 
efforts.  The  Church  is  a  great  workshop.  It  is 
a  great  system  of  mutual  guard.  It  is  a  great  army 
of  mutual  defence.  It  is  a  great  force  to  move 
against  the  wicked.  And  in  all  these  reasons  of  her 
being,  the  Church  draws  her  life  from  her  individual 
member.  He  must  be  a  hopefully  changed  man. 
That  must  be  the  term  of  her  communion.  He  need 
not  be  correct  in  doctrine.  That  must  be  the  test 
of  the  preachers  of  the  word.  But  with  doctrine 
enough  to  be  converted,  and  with  practice  enough 
to  judge  of  his  religion,  he  must  be  a  new  born 
saint,  or,  at  least,  so  hopefully  such  as  to  ask  a  place 
among  the  people  of  his  Master. 

CHApTER  VI. 

OFFICERS   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

The  officers  which  the  members  of  the  Church  are 
to  elect,  are  Presbyters  (i  Pet.  v.  i),  and  Deacons 
(i  Tim.  iii.  8-12).  The  Presbyters  are  of  two  kinds, 
preachers  of  the  word  (i  Pet.  v.  i),  who  are  also 
rulers  (Acts  xvi.  4),  and   those  who  are  rulers  only 


246  Church  and  Ordmances.        [Book  V. 

(i  Tim.  V.  17).  These  are  really  different  offices. 
And  though,  as  sitting  in  the  same  court  (Acts  xv. 
25-28),  they  have  the  same  name  of  Presbyter,  their 
difference  is  greater  than  their  likeness.  To  say, 
they  have  the  same  ''  order''  but  different  **  office^' 
is  all  folly.  Those  names  themselves  have  no  such 
technic  difference.  It  is  sad  to  battle  over  such  emp- 
tinesses. There  are  really  three  somethings  in  the 
church,  Preachers,  Elders  and  Deacons.  And  though 
they  overlap  their  functions,  so  that  a  Preacher 
rules,  and  all  the  rulers  may  exert  the  function  of  a 
Deacon,  yet  the  three  are  distinct  enough,  the 
Preacher  being  the  public  teacher  of  the  flock,  the 
Elder  being  on  the  same  bench  to  rule,  and  the 
Deacon  being  the  keeper  of  the  purse  ;  of  the  whole 
purse  if  the  members  so  decree,  but  of  the  charita- 
ble bestowments  of  the  people  by  right  and  from  the 
very  functions  of  his  office  (Acts  vi.  3). 

These  are  the  functionaries  of  the  Christian 
Church,  as  they  are  appointed  in  the  words  of  the 
Apostles. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

COUNCILS   OF  THE  CHURCH. 

We  have  already  spoken  of  votes  and  of  such  sov- 
ereignty by  members  of  the  Church  as  may  delegate 
itself  in  elections  by  the  people.  This  of  course 
implies  meetings.  The  most  elementary  meeting  is 
that  of  the  Congregation.  That  may  either  be  of 
the  Members,  or,  if  they  have  lent  their  sovereignty, 


Chap.  VII.]      Councils  of  the  Church.  247 

of  the  Pewholders,  or  of  the  whole  Congregation  of 
the  attending  worshippers. 

This  body  ex  initio  must  unite  in  the  original  or- 
ganization, and  from  time  to  time  elect  the  officers 
of  the  church. 

Tlie  second  body  in  ascent  is  the  Session,  or,  let 
us  say,  the  "Council."  It  goes  by  different  names, 
and  consists  of  as  many  Preachers  and  as  many 
Elders  as  have  been  elected  by  the  church.  They 
hold  regular  courts,  and  govern  and  discipline  and 
order,  and  elect  delegates  to  the  next  higher  court. 

The  next  court  is  the  Presbytery,  consisting  of 
one  Preacher  and  one  other  Ruler  from  every  church. 
This  court  judges  preachers,  decides  cases  of  disci- 
pline, settles  questions  of  order,  enacts  law^s  for 
government,  enunciates  creeds,  administers  the 
affairs  of  the  body,  ordains  preachers,  founds  train- 
ing schools,  and,  as  long  as  it  is  supreme,  controls 
fully  the  order  and  worship  of  the  body. 

When  the  church  multiplies,  however,  till  there 
must  be  other  Presbyteries,  then  a  general  Synod 
must  follow,  which  may  be  either  of  all  the  Preach- 
ers and  an  Elder  for  each  church,  or  of  delegated 
Preachers  and  Elders  from  every  Presbytery ;  and 
when  Synods  multiply,  a  General  Council  must  fol- 
low, which  must  be  the  supreme  court  of  appeal,  and 
consist  of  a  proper  delegation  from  either  Presby- 
teries or  Synods. 

This  is  what  is  meant  by  the  government  of  a 
Republic,  and  this  is  the  government  which  many 
Protestants  regard  just  as  we  do,  as  the  actual  model 


248  Church  and  Ordinances.        [Book  V. 

sketched  and  intended  for  us,  and,  therefore,  practi- 
cally enjoined,  in  no  very  indistinct  outlines  in  the 
words  of  revelation. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

AUTHORITY    OF   THE   CHURCH. 

I.  If  the  Church  be  an  ordinance  of  the  Almighty, 
if  follows  that  she  has  certain  rights,  and  one  of 
these  is  tliat  men  shall  repent  of  their  sins  and  unite 
themselves  to  her  communion.  This  is  the  golden 
mean  between  the  authority  of  the  older  churches, 
and  the  lax  voluntaryism  of  the  Reformed  of  our 
day. 

If  the  Church  be  really  an  ordinance  of  Christ,  she 
must  be,  in  a  very  authoritative  sense,  His  represen- 
tative, and  it  is  by  no  means  a  voluntary  thing,  in 
the  sense  of  being  uncommanded,  that  we  join  the 
Church  and  take  the  sacraments. 

The  multiplicity  of  churches  does  not  alter  the 
obligation.  If  creeds  are  many,  it  does  not  release 
us  from  a  creed  :  and  if  churches  are  many,  all  the 
more  are  we  to  confess  our  inferiority,  and  seek  all 
the  more  carefully  of  Heaven  the  shelter  of  the  most 
suitable  communion.  That  is  Christ's  church  for 
us  where  He  lifts  His  flag  over  the  door;  and  He 
lifts  His  flag  where  the  house  is  sufificiently  near,  and 
the  pulpit  is  sufificiently  high,  and  the  creed  is  suffi- 
ciently strong,  and  the  best  and  most  earnest  piety 
yearns  after  the  place,  as  fittest  for  the  uses  of  our 
spirits. 


Chap.  VIII.]  Authority  of  the  Church.  249 

2.  Having  selected  such  a  church,  what  authority 
has  it  over  us  afterward  ?  (i)  None  as  against  the 
Bible.  It  cannot  impose  a  creed,  and  it  cannot  de- 
trude for  the  want  of  one  in  the  instance  of  its  mem- 
bers. A  church  has  a  right  to  agreement  among  its 
ministers,  and  should  exercise  a  wise  discretion  as  to 
how  great  that  agreement  must  be.  But  as  to  its 
members,  the  conditions  are  different.  She  must 
correct  her  members,  that  is,  instruct  them  as  to 
the  doctrines  of  Christ,  but  to  expel  them  for  failing 
to  agree,  is  only  lawful  where  the  dissidence  is  such 
that  that  which  is  the  real  condition  of  membership, 
namely  piety,  comes  to  be  involved.  That  is  a  false 
habit,  therefore,  and  not  commensurate  with  the 
law  of  the  Reformed,  which  marshals  new  commun- 
icants in  an  aisle,  and  questions  them  as  to  the  truth 
of  a  symbol. 

The  Church  is  a  hospital.  If  men  are  sick,  hurry 
them  into  it.  If  they  are  crippled  in  belief,  pass 
them  into  a  ward  immediately.  If  they  are  strug- 
gling to  get  well,  that  is  about  all  that  should  be 
asked.  And  if  a  sinner  is  seeking  to  be  saved,  and  has 
advanced  so  far  as  to  turn  the  point  of  his  conver- 
sion, take  him  in.  The  place  is  meant  for  such.  And 
if  the  Church  has  a  right  to  believers,  believers  have  a 
right  to  the  Church,  and  can  knock  at  her  door  and 
demand,  in  Christ's  name,  an  ungrudged  admission. 

(2)  Equally,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Church  can- 
not forbid  conduct  if  it  be  essential  to  our  well 
being,  and  if  it  is  not  forbidden  in  the  word  of  God, 
and  yet 


250  C /litre h  and  Ordinances,        [Book  V. 

(3)  In  matters  unessential,  the  Church  ought  to 
be  submitted  to.  It  shows  how  careful  a  church 
should  be  ;  but  such  should  be  the  reverence  of  her 
members,  that  they  should  listen  to  the  words  of 
Christ.  He  certainly  delegates  important  domicil- 
iary authority.  He  certainly  utters  conundrums  un- 
less they  are  to  have  positive  and  representative 
force.  He  positively  tells  His  disciples,  "Whatso- 
ever ye  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven." 
And  Paul  says,  "  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over 
you,"  and  translates  it  into  a  subject  condition, — 
''Obey  and  submit  yourselves;"  and  then  philoso- 
phizes upon  it,  giving  it  the  force  of  a  functional 
necessity  of  just  such  a  thing  as  a  church;  "for 
they  watch  for  souls  as  they  who  must  give  account, 
that  they  may  do  it  with  joy  and  not  with  grief." 

A  church  is  like  a  woman.  If  we  have  respect 
enough  to  marry  her,  we  ought  to  love  her.  And  if 
we  join  the  Church,  we  ought  to  listen  to  her  in 
respect  to  doctrine,  and  in  respect  to  the  grander 
obligations,  and  then  we  ought  positively  to  obey  her 
in  respect  to  those  freer  things  in  which  she  has  a 
right  to  govern. 

3.  Lastly,  the  punishments  of  a  church  are  not 
physical.  But  if  the  Church  is  the  Almighty's  ordi- 
nance, and  if  a  man  has  a  right  to  join  it,  and  all  that 
the  Papist  says  as  to  its  rights  are  true  in  respect  to 
our  obligation  to  join  and  in  respect  to  the  Church's 
claim  to  a  general  obedience,  the  censures  of  a 
church  are  a  serious  punishment,  and  absolute  ex- 
pulsion   from    a   church,  other  things  being  equal, 


Chap.  IX.]       A  Call  to  the  Ministry.  251 

ought  to  be  one  of  those  solemn  events  which  should 
wake  a  man  up,  and  be  an  actual  method  to  restore 
him  to  repentance. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

A  CALL  TO   THE  MINISTRY. 

A  CHURCH,  being  a  positive  ordinance,  and  rep- 
resenting, on  that  very  account,  her  blessed 
Redeemer,  a  minister,  more  than  anybody  else 
representing  the  church,  represents  more  than  any 
other  single  professor  of  the  faith  the  Court  of  his 
Master. 

No  one,  therefore,  can  take  this  honor  on  him 
save  he  which  is  called  of  God  as  was  Aaron, 

Now  a  call  to  the  ministry  is  threefold,  (i)  by  the 
Church,  (2)  by  her  courts,  and  (3)  by  the  Almighty. 

And  these  three  are  interentrant  like  a  triple 
finger-ring.  The  Church  will  not  settle  a  minister 
without  her  Presbytery,  or  the  Presbytery  without 
the  Church, or  either  without  God.  And  God  Him- 
self does  not  call  a  minister  in  ordinary  times,  unless 
God  and  Church  and  Court  have  all  been  found  to 
agree  in  their  sanction  of  the  office. 

And  yet,  the  great  call  of  all,  that  is,  the  call  of  our 
Creator,  is  the  one  that  is  most  miserably  misunder- 
stood. It  has  been  made  a  sieve,  often,  to  hold  the 
chaff,  and  let  the  chief  of  the  wheat  riddle  through 
and  be  discouraged.  ''The  witness  of  the  Spirit  " 
delays  the  honest  in  their  conversion.  And  so  ''  a 
call  to  the  ministry,"  I  mean,  of  course,  a  perversion 


252  Church  and  Ordinances.        [Book  V. 

of  both  these  terms,  drives  off  the  strong,  and  leaves 
some  weak  dupe  to  accept  the  office. 

There  is  no  "  witness  of  the  Spirit  "  but  a  better 
character;  and  there  is  no  "call  to  the  ministry" 
but  a  wise  choice,  on  which  we  have  invoked  the 
blessing  of  the  Father,  and  upon  which  Church  and 
Court  have  agreed  that  we  shall  be  ''  ordained^ 

This  ''ordination^'  also,  is  not  the  chief  act  of  the 
representatives  of  their  King.  Nothing  passes. 
There  is  no  direct  power,  unless  it  be  a  blessing  upon 
things  lawfully  fulfilled.  The  chief  act  is  before  all 
this  in  the  Church,  and  in  the  vote  of  the  Presbytery. 
And  as  to  the  laying  on  of  hands,  one  would  be  or- 
dained if  it  did  not  happen.  Vast  injury  springs 
from  these  trivial  words,  preeminently  where  there 
is  no  word  at  all ;  for  "  ordination,''  which  has 
claimed  great  mark  in  the  Church,  scarcely  trans- 
lates the  same  Greek  twice,  and  is  a  most  careless 
version  of  near  a  dozen  vocables. 

CHAPTER  X. 

PREACHING. 

The  chief  function  of  a  preacher  is  to  preach. 
Here  again  another  error  has  stolen  upon  us.  Or- 
dination is  the  English  for  a  dozen  words,  and 
preaching  the  English  of  but  one,  and  yet,  strange  to 
say,  opposite  facts  are  again  connected  with  a  vain 
idolatry. 

Preaching  simply  means  heralding  {KrfpvaaoDv). 

It  is  talked  of  so  much   in  Scripture,  that  it  has 


Chap.  X.]  Preaching.  253 

grown  fast  to  that  thing  which  has  become  so  com- 
mon in  our  day,  an  utterance  of  a  measured  sort  in 
a  pubUc  congregation.  Paul  never  preached.  Let 
me  not  be  misunderstood.  I  do  not  trifle  for  a 
moment  w^ith  that  splendid  usage  which  stands  fore- 
most in  our  worship.  But  we  are  tracing  histories. 
Paul  never  had  a  chance.  I  am  simply  arguing  that 
that  definite  word  means  simply  heralding,  whether 
it  be  in  the  school  of  one  Tyrannus  (Acts  xix.  9),  or 
on  the  seashore  (Acts  xvi.  13),  or  by  letter  (2  Cor.  x. 
10),  or  by  messages  through  other  men,  or  '*  publicly 
and  from  house  to  house"  (Acts  xx.  20),  or  "pri- 
vately to  those  of  reputation  "  (Gal.  ii.  2),  or  by  one- 
self with  a  soldier  (Acts  xxviii.  16),  or  in  any 
possible  way  in  which  one  man  can  utter  truth  or 
write  a  sentence  for  its  influence  upon  others.  What 
a  pity  to  crystallize  all  this  into  sermons,  and  to  give 
it  to  be  believed  that  it  is  the  foolishness  of  these 
that  is  lifted  into  the  sole  preeminence  of  being  the 
signal  instrument  of  the  world's  conversion  !  No  one 
can  think  of  this  without  being  sure  that  there  has 
attached  to  preaching  a  special  excuse  from  almost 
any  other  labor  ;  moreover  a  special  excuse  from 
this,  except  as  a  bullet  shot  into  a  tree,  to  be  left 
with  the  Master  ;  that  we  must  speak  our  sermon, 
and  leave  the  effects  on  high,  a  sentence  that  is  hard 
to  treat  with  disrespect,  but  which  belongs  to  a  class 
which  hardly  would  strike  a  man  as  incident  to  Paul 
when  he  was  pursuing  his  style  of  preaching  in  his 
eager  insistencies  with  the  wicked. 

At  any  rate  there  is  no  special  promise,  which  is 


2  54  Church  and  Ordinances.        [Book  V. 

not  to  visits  or  letters,  in  our  modern  preaching. 
And  only  as  it  is  a  good  thing  to  do,  has  it  a  right  to 
any  preeminent  place  among  the  different  modes  of 
schooling  or  ''discipling''  (Matt,  xxviii.  I9)the  people. 

Let  me  be  very  careful  !  Paul  may  plant  and 
Apollos  water,  but  God  only  giveth  the  increase 
(i  Cor.  iii.  6).  And  yet  listen  to  Christ — "■  I  will 
give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  " 
(Matt.  xvi.  19).  It  is  evident  that  there  is  a  strong 
obligation  that  we  have  other  people  converted,  just 
as  certainly  as  there  is  that  we  be  converted  our- 
selves. Paul  travailed  with  men,  and  insisted  that 
Christ  be  formed  in  them  ;  and  though  he  was  not  a 
man  to  forget  God,  yet  he  was  not  a  man  for  that 
other  thing,  namely,  to  sermonize  from  week  to  week 
with  a  certain  easy  relief  of  conscience,  built  upon 
the  thought  that  the  result  belonged  to  the  Almighty. 

Discourses  of  this  public  character,  distinct  from 
more  private  teaching,  and  distinct  from  more 
broken  speech  that  a  letter  or  a  pastor's  visit  or  a 
mother's  instruction  might  supply,  have  been  kept  in 
their  bad  eminence  by  that  most  obstinate  travesty 
of  the  facts,  the  case  of  Peter.  Hardly  a  revival 
season  but  people  talk  of  his  conversion  of  three 
thousand  men.  The  tampering  is  unprecedented. 
You  may  correct  that  statement  a  thousand  times. 
It  will  come  up  again  at  the  next  meeting.  You 
may  correct  it  in  the  boldest  shape.  You  may  let 
the  man  who  makes  the  statement  select  the  circum- 
stances. You  may  ask  him.  Had  God  always  a 
church  ?     And  when  he  has  confessed  that  He  had, 


Chap.  X.]  Preaching,  255 

and  that  that  church  was  among  the  Jews,  and  that 
that  church  had  converted  saints  all  through  the  his- 
tory of  the  apostles,  you  have  but  to  ask  him,  Did 
good  Jews  come  up  to  Jerusalem,  and  were  there  in 
the  crowd,  as  this  very  narrative  shows,  what  Luke 
calls  "  Jews,  devout  men  out  of  every  nation  under 
Heaven,"  and  if  that  be  so,  why  is  the  Church  always 
insisting  that  Peter  converted  three  thousand  men  ? 
How  did  he  exclude  from  his  hearers  men  already 
converted?  How  can  we  be  sure  that  the  men  *'  cut 
to  the  heart"  were  not,  crowds  of  them,  pious 
Israelites  ?  How  can  we  know  at  all  that  they  were 
not  every  one  so  ?  And  when  it  cannot  be  reduced 
to  a  fact  that  Peter  converted  anybody,  why  should 
this  singularly  perverted  Pentecost  have  shadowed 
so  long  the  more  patient  labors  of  the  Church,  and 
erected  preaching,  in  this  more  formal  shape,  over 
the  prayers  and  tears  and  patience  of  the  more  toil- 
some ministrations  for  our  Redeemer?^ 

Let  us  not  be  misunderstood.  We  believe  in 
sermons,  and  in  sudden  outpourings  of  glorious 
revivals  in  the  Church.  But  why,  to  make  this  out, 
need  I  falsely  understand  Krjpvaaoov  (preaching), 
and  need  I  peremptorily  garble  the  great  narrative 
of  the  "  Day  of  Pentecost  "  ? 

*  "  Such  as  should  be  saved  "  (Acts  ii.  47)  is  a  dreadfully  partisan 
translation  (E.  V.)  of  the  passive  participle  ;  and  "those  that  were 
being  saved"  (Re.)  is  just  as  biassed.  The  sense  is,  merely,  "saved 
ones  ;"  and  the  meaning  is,  that,  "  daily,"  such  as  were  saved,  and 
perhaps  had  been  in  a  saved  condition  for  fifty  years,  were  "  added 
to  the  church,"  that  is,  became  sure,  like  Nathaniel,  or  like  the 
Virgin,  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  and  joined  the  assemblage  of  His 
open  worshippers. 


256  Church  and  Ordinances.       [Book  vi. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE    SACRAMENTS. 

Two  ceremonies  that  remain  in  the  Church  when 
all  the  temple-rites  have  been  swept  away,  are  called 
Sacraments.  The  name  is  a  good  one,  though  it  was 
not  given  by  our  Master  ;  and  it  is  good  because 
there  are  three  things  in  a  Sacrament,  and  that 
which  this  name  implies  is  by  far  the  most  import- 
ant of  the  three. 

The  tendency  to  rest  in  forms,  and  to  worship  im- 
ages and  relics  is  so  enormous,  that  we  have  reason 
to  be  thankful  that  God  has  so  little  that  is  outward 
in  the  Church,  and  reason  to  be  careful  in  confound- 
ing these  two,  because,  as  might  have  been  predicted 
beforehand,  they  have  led  to  shameful  superstitions. 

No  earlier  than  last  year,  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
by  one  of  her  ministers,  has  taught  the  opus  operatiun 
in  the  rite  of  baptism  (Pres.  Rev.,  vol.  v.,  Jan.,  p.  i  ; 
see  also  Schaff's  Creeds  of  Christendom,  vol.  i.  p.  456). 
Before  we  enter,  therefore,  upon  the  three  meanings 
of  the  Sacraments,  let  us  say,  very  carefully,  what  is 
not  their  meaning,  or,  to  be  more  precise,  what  is 
that  one  meaning  of  both  which  exhausts  and  fences 
in  all  their  intended  signification. 

That  meaning  is  common  to  prayer  or  to  alms- 
giving or  to  any  commanded  observance. 

Prayer  is  a  thing  (i)  useful  in  its  own  nature,  and 
(2)  useful  because  it  is  commanded,  and  (3)  useful 
because,    being   commanded,  it    will    meet    with   a 


Chap.  XL]  The  Sacraments.  257 

promised  reward.  Calvin  might  have  been  at  better 
work  than  of  pushing  the  Sacraments  across  these 
boundaries. 

And  what  we  mean  by  one  meaning  is,  intelligible 
and  easily  admitted  usefulness.  The  Sacraments  are 
not  powers  mystically  different  from  prayer,  (i) 
Prayer  is  useful  in  itself  from  its  very  nature.  (2) 
Prayer  is  useful  otherwise  as  an  act  of  obedience. 
And  (3)  Prayer  is  useful  in  its  consequence  as  prom- 
ised an  answer.  Baptism  has  an  exactly  correspond- 
ing signification.  It  is  useful  like  everything  else, 
by  its  influence  in  us  as  an  act,  and  it  is  useful  like 
everything  else,  by  its  influence  on  us  in  its  promise. 
To  the  lost  child  or  the  lost  adult,  irrespective  of 
any  faith,  it  has  no  influence  at  all ;  nor  even  respec- 
tive of  our  faith  has  it  any,  except  in  that  perfectly 
unmystic  and  promised  way  in  which  a  mother  ex- 
pects influence  when  she  prays  for  a  child,  or  an 
adult  expects  it  when  he  schools  his  heart  to  an 
understood  compliance. 

The  Sacraments  are  instrumental,  therefore.  And 
now  we  can  explain  their  meanings. 

1.  And  in  the  first  place,  they  are  "'signs'  They 
are  touching  pictures  to  exhibit  the  great  truths  of 
our  religion. 

2.  Again,  they  are  tokens  of  communion.  This  we 
shall  see  under  the  head  of  each  of  them. 

3.  But,  lastly,  they  are  sacraments. 

Every  syllable  added  on  a  point  like  this  en- 
dangers mysticism.  Let  me  despatch  it  by  a  word. 
A  sacrament  means  an  oath.     It  was  the  oath  of  the 


258  Chttrch  and  Ordinances.      [Book  VI. 

ancient  Legionary.  There  was  no  one  more  conse- 
crated than  the  Roman  soldier.  A  sacrament  is, 
simply,  that  Christ's  Legionary  lifts  his  cap,  and 
swears  allegiance.  And  that  is  all  of  it.  Christ 
swears  in  return,  and  so  did  the  Roman  Empire.  It 
is  a  mutual  promise.  Does  it  do  us  good?  Of 
course  it  does :  good  in  the  very  oath,  and  good  for 
ever  if  we  wisely  keep  it.  Is  it  special  good?  Of 
course  it  is.  All  good  is  special.  No  two  trees  in 
the  forest  of  command,  bear  the  same  leaf,  or 
smoulder  to  the  like  ashes.  Is  it  uncommon  good  ? 
Yes,  if  we  be  earnest,  for  it  is  a  very  uncommon 
oath,  and  men  are  wrought  upon  by  it  to  uncommon 
earnestness  of  feeling.  The  Sacraments  are  not  un- 
like in  any  mystic  way  to  all  the  divine  commands, 
and,  therefore,  of  no  earthly  good  except  the  com- 
mand be  obeyed ;  and  then,  like  all  other  com- 
mands, of  good  proportionate  to  the  extent  of  the 
obedience. 

As  the  form  of  the  command  is  an  oath,  and  that 
with  interdependent  conditions,  the  oath  on  Christ's 
part  is  kept,  and  that  is  the  technic  form  of  the  sac- 
ramental ef^cacy. 

CHAPTER    XII. 


Baptism  is  complicated  in  its  significance  by  its 
administration  to  infants. 

There  are  two  promises  which  are  positive  in  the 
word  of  God,     Those,  and  what  shall  happen  at  the 


Chap.  XII.]  Baptism.  259 

resurrection,  and  what  shall  not  happen  as  to  another 
flood  (Gen.  viii.  22),  and  what  shall  not  happen  as  to 
the  Church  (Matt.  xvi.  18),  are  all  the  positive  prom- 
ises that  we  recollect  in  Scripture. 

We  are  not  promised  life  or  wealth. 

But  we  are  promised,  first,  that  if  we  believe  we 
shall  be  saved,  and  we  are  promised,  second,  just  as 
positively  in  respect  to  our  children. 

This  is  the  foundation  of  the  two  great  acts,  adult 
and  infant  baptism.  In  adult  baptism  the  sacrament 
is  that  we  will  belong  to  Christ,  and  His  sacrament  \s 
that  then  He  will  grant  us  salvation.  And  in  infant 
baptism  the  sacrament  is  that  we  will  save  our  chil- 
dren, that  we  will  do  those  things  which  God  has 
promised  shall  be  the  instruments  of  grace,  and 
then  Christ's  oath  becomes,  that  our  children  shall 
meet  us  among  the  blessed.  How  baptism  is  a 
"sign"  I  need  hardly  describe,  or  how  it  is  a  com- 
munion. It  is  a  picture  lesson  of  our  washing  from 
sin,  and  an  open  step  into  the  fellowship  of 
believers. 

Of  course  it  is  trifling  to  baptize  an  impenitent, 
and  equally  unmeaning  and  unintended  to  baptize 
the  children  of  them  who  can  make  no  profession. 

As  to  the  form  of  baptism,  we  reject  immersion 
as  the  necessity  of  a  Christian  Church  for  three  con- 
siderations : — First,  we  do  not  believe  that  the 
Apostles  immersed  (Acts  ii.  41  ;  xvi.  33  ;  i  Cor.  x. 
2  ;  Mar.  vii.  4) ;  second,  we  do  not  believe  we  ought 
to,  in  a  different  climate,  or  need  to,  any  more  than 
to  lie  on  the  floor,  as  when   the   Lord's  supper  was 


26o  Church  and  Ordinances.       [Book  vr. 

originally  instituted;  but,  most  of  all,  we  do  not  be- 
lieve that  it  should  be  erected  into  a  test,  so  eminent 
as  to  divide  the  Church,  or  so  much  insisted  upon 
as  to  blind  the  people  to  the  essentials  of  the 
Gospel. 

We  are  confirmed  in  this  because  "  Jesus  Christ 
baptized  not  His  disciples;"  because  Paul  was  so 
careful  to  keep  the  rite  subordinate  ;  because  he 
said,  ''  I  thank  God  I  baptized  none  of  you,"  save 
a  certain  insignificant  number;  and  because  he 
sounded  it  out  so  imperatively,  '*  God  sent  me  not 
to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  Gospel  "  (i  Cor.  i.  17). 
A  fair  inference  might  seem  to  be  that,  rather  than 
divide  the  Church,  a  man  might  comply  with  the 
usage  determined  upon  by  believers. 

CHAPTER    XIII. 

THE     lord's     supper. 

There  are  four  promises  in  the  word  of  God, 
which,  on  account  of  their  Oriental  positiveness,  have 
been  made  the  foundation  of  grave  mistakes.  What 
a  pity  that  the  first  two,  made  mischief  of  by  the 
Israelitish  people,  did  not  shelter  the  last  two,  and 
prevent  the  Christian  Church  from  falling  into  the 
same  insanity ! 

The  first  is  the  calling  of  Abraham  : — "  I  will 
establish  My  covenant  between  Me  and  thee,  and  thy 
seed  after  thee  in  their  generations,  for  an  everlast- 
ing covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed 
after  thee"  (Gen.xvii.  7).     The  second  immediatel)- 


Chap.  XIII.]       The  Lord's  Supper.  261 

follows  (v.  10) :  ''  This  is  My  covenant  which  ye  shall 
keep  between  Me  and  you  and  thy  seed  after  thee  : 
every  man-child  among  you  shall  be  circumcised." 
The  third  is  long  after,  *'  He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized  shall  be  saved"  (Mar.  xvi.  16).  And  the 
fourth  is  soon  to  follow:  ''This  is  My  body"  (i 
Cor.  xi.  24) ;  and  then,  most  emphatic  of  all, 
"  Whoso  eateth  My  flesh  and  drinketh  My  blood 
hath  eternal  life,  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the 
last  day  "  (Jo.  vi.  54). 

The  first  two  shaped  the  Rabbinical  beliefs,  and 
led  to  the  decision  that  ''  no  circumcised  man  who 
had  a  drop  of  the  blood  of  Abraham  could  come 
within  a  billion  of  miles  of  Gehenna."  Hence  the 
"endless  genealogies"  (i  Tim.  i.  4;  Ti.  iii.  9),  and 
hence,  too,  the  difficulties  of  Paul  in  eradicating  the 
faith  in  circumcision  from  the  minds  of  his  people 
(Acts  XV.  I  ;  Gal.  v.  2,  6). 

It  seems  provoking  that  the  old  fraud  should- 
come  back  in  Christianity.  We  have  already  con- 
sidered it  in  the  instance  of  baptism.  In  the  in- 
stance of  the  Lord's  Supper  it  is  more  deep  and 
more  elaborate.  "This  is  My  body"(i  Cor.  xi. 
24)  has  been  taken  just  as  it  stands.  It  has  been 
idle  to  quote  "  This  is  the  bread  "  (Jo.  vi.  50),  or 
"This  is  wickedness"  (Zech.  v.  8),  or  "This  is  the 
curse  "  (v.  3),  or  "  These  are  the  two  anointed  ones  " 
(Zech.  iv.  14).  And  when  the  time  came  to  recoil, 
just  as  in  the  instance  of  circumcision,  the  Church 
lingered.  Luther  eased  off  from  the  Mass  with  his 
miserable    doctrine     of    Consubstantiation.      And, 


262  Church  and  Ordinances.       [Book  VI. 

even  in  our  day,  the  soberest  Churches,  as  for  ex- 
ample, the  Presbyterian,  cHng  to  an  opus  operatum 
(Westm.  Conf.,  chap,  xxviii.  61).  Our  blessed  Lord 
instituted  a  memorial  (Lu.  xxii.  19),  and  gave  His 
disciples  the  command  in  the  simplest  way  (i  Cor. 
xi.  24),  and  we,  unwarned  by  the  case  of  circumcision, 
cling  to  a  mystic  sense,  and  find  it  hard  to  reduce 
the  observance  to  those  three  significances  which 
have  been  already  detailed. 

Let  us  now  take  them  up  in  respect  to  this  second 
ceremonial  observance. 

1.  In  the  first  place  it  is  a  sign.  And  in  this  in- 
stance it  is  broader  and  more  varied.  It  is  a  memo- 
rial (Lu.  xxii.  19),  and  in  this  way  a  sign  of  affec- 
tion and  a  lesson  in  gratitude.  Hence  it  is  a  eucha- 
rist  (Lu.  xxii.  19),  a  great  thankful  feast  (Is.  xxv.  6). 
It  is  a  pictured  gospel.  "This  is  My  body  broken 
for  you."  And  the  sacrifice  made  for  a  divine  atone- 
ment,  and  the  covenant  over  the  cut  pieces  (Gen. 
XV.  17),  and  the  joy  over  a  gracious  entrance  to  life 
(Jo.  vi.  51),  are  all  '*  discerned"  in  that  simple  rite 
which  partitions  and  exhibits  the  body  of  the 
Lord. 

2.  It  is  a  communion.  We  "all  eat  the  same 
spiritual  meat."  We  are  all  guests  of  the  Master. 
And  He  is  our  guest.  It  is  a  strange  communion. 
We  invite  Him  to  our  table,  and  He  brings  with 
Him  a  Friend  ;  for  the  Father  shall  love  us,  and,  in 
all  this  beautiful  rite,  the  Man  shall  bring  with  him 
the  God,  and  we  shall  hold  in  common  the  Son  and 
the  Father. 


Chap.  XIV.]    Old  Evangelical  Chicrch,  263 

3.  Once  more,  it  is  a  sacrament,  and  here  by  this 
time  it  has  explained  itself.  We  take  this  cup,  and 
consecrate  ourselves  to  the  Master.  We  get  that 
much  out  of  the  ordinance  by  the  words  of  the  insti- 
tution ;  but  we  cannot  get  more.  "  This  cup  is  the 
New  Covenant  in  My  blood  "  (Lu.  xxii.  20).  And, 
now,  we  gather  back  all  that  it  contains,  (i)  It  is  a 
sign,  exhibiting  the  gospel  gifts.  (2)  It  is  a  com- 
munion, a  recognition  in  common  of  Christ  and 
His  bone  and  flesh.  And  (3)  it  is  a  sacrament,  a  con- 
secration of  Christ  to  us  and  a  consecration  of  our- 
selves to  Christ  in  earnest  promises. 

Outside  of  this,  Consubstantiation  or  a  mystic  opus 
(Schaff's  Creeds  of  Christendom^  vol.  iii.,  p.  468)  is 
a  dalliance  which  we  find  it  difficult  to  excuse. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  OLD  EVANGELICAL  CHURCH. 

How  much  of  all  this  in  the  previous  chapters 
would  seem  to  be  a  foundation  for  a  church?  If 
the  Trinity  be  false,  we  should  know  it.  And  if  it 
came  in  from  a  Pagan  college,  it  seems  cruel  to  per- 
secute men  for  looking  hard  at  the  Trinity,  and 
digging  deep  about  it,  and  finding  that  out.  It 
must  be  odious  to  our  Master  to  have  driven  a  spirit 
like  Mohammed,  even  on  the  pretext  of  this  poly- 
theistic fable,  away  from  His  church,  and  Islam, 
now,  away  from  the  possibilities  of  His  Mediatorial 
Kingdom.  It  would  seem  a  grand  thing  to  show  that 
all  anti-Trinity  is  not  Socinian,  and  not  even  Arian  ; 


264  Church  and  Ordinances.      [Book  VI. 

most  of  all,  that  it  is  not  Sabellian,  a  form  that 
seems  strangely  dangerous  ;  that  it  is  not  Sweden- 
borgian,  which  denies  humanity  to  Christ  :  that  it  is 
not  Monarchian  in  any  old  time  sense,  degenerating 
in  hybrid  forms  into  littlenesses  that  are  worse 
than  Trinities  :  but  that  there  is  a  downright  anti- 
Trinity  which  sweeps  the  field  ;  which  denies  all 
Threenesses  of  a  ghostly  shape,  whatever ;  which 
avers  that  the  Triad  was  wrought  of  whole  stuff  by 
the  Pagans ;  and  that  the  glorious  gospel  of  Christ 
asks  but  two  things,  a  man-pitying  God  and  a  God- 
begotten  and  God-interentering  Man  ;  and  that  that 
gospel  is  infinitely  more  strict  which  has  not  fouled 
itself  with  the  track  which  the  Trinity  has  made 
among  the  faiths,  but  is  responsible  for  nothing  of 
the  sort ;  teaching  that  God  is  "  manifest  in  the 
flesh  "  (i  Tim.  iii.  16),  and,  after  that,  being  satisfied 
with  the  idea  that  there  is  one  God  and  one  Media- 
tor between  God  and  Man,  the  Man  Qirist  Jesus 
(i   Tim.  ii.  5). 

And  yet,  when  we  remember  how  God  is  robbed 
of  His  sovereignty  by  making  His  sovereignty  every- 
thing, and  hanging  it,  like  Mohammed's  coffin,  with 
in  no  wise  any  support :  how  He  is  tarnished  in  holi- 
ness by  making  vengeance  an  attribute,  and  making 
His  punishments  infinite  and  yet  wilful,  and,  still 
more  than  that,  for  Himself  as  His  highest  end,  and 
that  in  the  most  disgusting  shape  of  displaying  His 
infinite  perfections — when  all  these  monstrosities 
are  piled  together;  and  when,  added  to  these,  comes 
a  release  in  which  there  is  a  helplessness  hopelessly 


Chap.  XIV.]   Old  Evangelical  Church.  265 

helpless,  and  a  sovereignty  wickedly  hard,  and  a 
gospel  foolishly  impossible  ;  when  there  is  a  condi- 
tion of  salvation  other  than  actual  repentance,  and 
terms  for  rejoicing  in  Christ  infinitely  on  the  surface 
and  immoral,  the  Trinity  seems  to  sink  into  utter 
indifference ;  these  errors  seem  to  rise  into  giant 
mould  ;  the  Church  seems  to  pass  into  a  cloud  of 
utter  undoing ;  we  look  around  for  evidences  of  her 
fall  ;  and  when  we  see  vast  defaults,  and  wickedness 
branding  the  very  face  of  our  Zion,  we  begin  to 
care  less  for  the  Trinity,  and  less  for  any  machine- 
like dogma  of  the  faith,  and  less  for  the  striking 
privilege  of  showing  that  the  purest  faith  does  not 
require  a  Trinity,  and  come  back  to  this  chiefest 
zeal — to  found  a  reform,  and  if  need  be  to  found  a 
church,  and  to  claim  by  actual  facts  that  it  is  the 
**  Old  Evangelical "  body,  and  to  make  its  great 
point  an  eviscerating,  not  so  needfully  of  a  Trinity, 
as  of  a  siiofuotit  sovereignty  of  Allah  ; — to  bring  back 
God  more  to  moral  duty;  to  make  His  sovereignty 
that ;  to  make  His  worshipfulness  and  His  glory  sim- 
ply that ;  to  make  our  rights  over  God  greater  than 
His  rights  over  us ;  and  then,  having  reduced  Him,  or 
rather  elevated  Him,  to  this,  to  make  ourselves 
follow,  and  to  make  a  renewed  obedience  the  single 
test  of  an  achieved  salvation. 

The  modern  church  is  an  insurance  office.  To 
bring  it  back  to  a  school,  and  to  preach  more  boldly 
that  to  be  saved  we  must  become  good,  and  that 
to  become  good  we  must  beg  God,  and,  at  the 
very    start,    practise    virtue,    and    struggle    after   it 


266  Chttrck  and  Ordinances.      [Book  VI. 

at  the  very  moment  we  are  calling  upon  the 
Redeemer;  and  to  drive  into  the  realm  of  night 
that  miserable  faith,  or,  if  you  please,  that  per- 
sonal trust,  not  moral,  by  which,  most  commonest 
of  all,  modern  inquirers  after  heaven  are  beguiled  by 
the  Evil  One,  would  be  a  noble  enterprise  for  a 
church,  and  would  constitute  a  noble  right  to  life 
as  a  communion. 

To  prove  that  there  was  no  room  for  Purgatory, 
would  be  good.  To  prove  that  there  was  no  Trinity, 
would  be  better.  But  to  prove  that  there  is  no 
Sovereignty  other  than  in  holiness,  and  no  salva- 
tion for  man  other  than  in  holiness,  is  best  of  all, 
and  a  vast  victory  over  faith  in  that  shallow  form  in 
which  it  stands  sponsor  for  millions  as  their  sole 
religion. 


THE  END. 


INDEX 


Abraham,  blood  of,  162,  192,  260. 

Absolution,  130. 

Adatn,  137,  I53,  196;  and  Christ, 
8,  83,  116,  119,  128,  137  ; 
Christ  in,  126,  128  ;  federal 
head,  85  ;  (see  Eve). 

Adventists,  227-233  ;  (see  Judg- 
ment and  Millennuim). 

Alexandria,  201,  2 12,  263. 

A  If  or  d,  204,  216. 

Ambrose,  143. 

Andover,  133. 

Angels,  153. 

Annihilation,  at  death,  224  ; 
after  hell,  225. 

Anthropomorphism,  5g,  loS. 

Antinomian,  178. 

Apostasy,  71,  195  I  (see  Fall). 

Archbishop,  237. 

Arianism,  129,  133,  203,  204, 
263. 

Arminianism,  133,  156. 

Articles,  Thirty-nine,  217. 

Atonement,  60,  135,  206  ;  theo- 
ries of,  5,  139  ;  (see  J^e- 
demption). 

Augustine,  143.  I7i,  173»  192, 
194,  196, 

Authority  of  the  Church,  248. 

Baptism,  130,  234,  235,  237,  257, 

258. 
Baxter,  192. 
Beauty  and  Right,  30. 
Bellarmine,  152,  200. 
Benevolence,  34,  115  ;  all  virtue. 

not,  39  ;  is  it  supernatural  ? 

36. 


Better,  effort  to  be.  28,  162,  171, 

186  ;  (see  Man), 
Bible,  72,  211  ;  authority  of  the, 

73.  78  ;  '^o  science   in  the  ? 

76. 
i5^^',   213,  214  ;    a  soul-,  68  ;  a 

spirit-,  68. 
Boston,  132. 

Ccz/«,  44,   125. 

Call  to  the  Ministry,  21,  23,  1 91, 
227,  251. 

Calvin,  205. 

Cardinal,  237. 

Cerinthus,  133,  203,  204. 

Character,  moral,  highest  good, 
37,  46  ;  God's,  man's  highest 
good,  47  ;  a  reward  or  pun- 
ishment, 49,  52, 

Chemnitz,  143. 

Christ,  114,  121  ;  nature  of  the 
man,  124,  127  ;  nature  of 
the  God,  129,  206  ;  in 
Adam.  126,  128  ;  probation 
of,  153- 

Christians,  probation  of,  153. 

Christology,  131,  136,  197. 

Church,  234  ;  never  repents,  4  ; 
visible,  234,  238  ;  an  ordi- 
nance, 235  ;  an  invention, 
236  ;  officers  of.  245,  251  ; 
members  of,  242  ;  Councils 
of,  246  ;  authority  of,  237, 
248  ;  of  a  certain  form,  237  ; 
mischief  of,  as  "  body  of  be- 
lievers," 239. 

Circumcision,  Iti2,  192,  234, 
260. 


268 


Index. 


Clarke,  Rev.  Dr.  James  Free- 
man, 205. 

Clean,  147. 

Cofuforter,  131 ;  (see  Spirit). 

Command7nents,  Ten,  149,  183 
(see  Law). 

Conditional  Ini mortality,  7,  8, 
224,  225  ;  (see  Hell  and 
Eschatology). 

Congo,  25  ;  Devil  worship  of,  26, 
27. 

Congregationa lists  and  Gehenna, 

7- 

Conscience,  23,  30,  41,  65,  66,  75, 
159,  172  ;  an  impaired,  69  ; 
incurable,  70,  186,  224,  226  ; 
God's,  92. 

Conscioustiess,  appeal  to,  25  ;  God 
one,  208  ;  merit  and  ill- 
desert  not  a,  53,  57  ;  (see 
Guilt). 

Consubstantiation,  261. 

Conversion,  158,    161. 

Cornelius,  29,  165. 

Councils,  246. 

Covenants,  188. 

Creation,  80,  93,  100,  104  ;  (see 
Evolution). 

Creeds,  248. 

Criticism,  (see  Higher). 

Darwin,  81. 

Dative  of  Material,  168,  175, 
178,   179. 

Deacons,  245. 

Death,  210,  214,  217  ;  spiritual, 
70,  120,   128,  186. 

Decrees,  104,  157  ;  (see  Reproba- 
tion). 

Demons,  153. 

ZJ^j-^r/ not  a  consciousness,  48,  57. 

Devil,  71,  75,  114,  115,  117,  119, 
137,  153.  156,  187,  196,  230. 

Differentia  of  faith  moral,  164, 
172,  266. 

Direction,  149,  182,  1 86  ;  (see 
Law). 

Divesy  215. 


Doctrinal  Faith,  83,  192. 
Dorner,  131,  136,  197,  209. 

Edwards,  39,  205. 

Electioti, 1 56, 194 ;  (see  Sovereignty 

and  the  Decrees). 
Electing  love,  20,  22,  115. 
Elders,  246  (see  Church,  its  offi- 
cers). 
Emotion,  no  good  except  in,  35, 

65. 
Emotions,  but  two  righteous,  40- 

45,  66  ;  other,  42-45. 
Eschatology,     210-216;    theories 

of,  222-226. 
Eusebius,  209. 
Eve,   78,   81,   82,    84,    125  ;  (see 

Adam). 
Evolution,  76,  81;  (see   Darxvin 

&  Creatio-)i). 
Expiation,  139. 

Faith,  %,  20,  22,  160,  162,  183, 
192,  227,  265,  266  ;  Romish 
definition,  164,  166;  justified 
by,  167,  172,  175,  227  ;  sanc- 
tified by,  167,  174  ;  how  far 
in  Christ,  165  ;  effect  of 
regeneration,  160,  164,  172; 
material  Genitive,  168,  ma- 
terial Dative,  168,  175;  prep- 
ositions, 169,  175  ;  the,  169  ; 
(see  Doctrinal  Faith) ;  dif- 
erentia  of,  164,  172.  266. 

Fall,  82,  103,  137  ;  {see.  Apostasy. 

Father,  131,  137. 

Fear,  Bible  appeals  to,  221. 

Flesh,  51,  68. 

Foreknowledge,  105. 

Forensic,  33,  141,  146,  147,  151, 
166,  175,  177. 

Gabriel,  98,  119,    129,  153,    162, 

187. 
Geneva,  132,  206. 
Genitive  of  Material,    149,   168, 

184. 
Ghost-life,  211,  212,  217, 


Index. 


269 


God,  22,  93,  112  ;  all  for  Him- 
self ?  20,   22,    46,    93,    112, 

264  ;  His  chief  end  display  ? 
20,  146,  219,  264  ;  His  will 
ground  of  moral  obligation  ? 
19,  22,  92  ;  man's  rights 
over,  98,  265  ;  a  more  moral, 
24,  112,  114  ;  no  love,  wor- 
ship, or  creation  but  for 
morals,  93  ;  man  in  image 
of,  90 ;  a  spirit,  95  ;  con- 
science of ,  92  ;  not  an  innate 
idea,  22,  95  ;  names  for, 
145;  simplicity  of,  1 10;  Arm, 
Arche,  names  of,  145,  203  ; 
seeking,  162,  164,  171,  178  ; 
help  of,  162,  164,  166,  171  ; 
has  one  consciousness,  208. 

6^^^^ 'i- highest  good,  25,  39,  47, 
114  ;  rights  over  man,   100, 

265  ;  chief  end,  loi,  114. 
God-Man,  the,  114  ;   reasons  for 

the,  116,  131,  134,  135. 

Good,  the  highest,  25,  45,  86, 
114  ;  God's  holiness  our 
highest,  47  ;  conscience  the 
seat  of  the  highest,  66. 

Gospel,  law  includes,  149,  159, 
183. 

Grace,  153,  180  ;  a  right,  99. 

Guilt,  56  ;  not  conscious,  48,  57. 

Happiness,  35,  37,  152. 

Heaven,  218,  222. 

Hell,  7,  56,  70,  2 [8,  220  ;  Christ 

and,    220 ;  (see    Conditional 

Immortality). 
Helplessness,  20,  264. 
Henry,  Joseph,  74. 
Hereafter,  the,  210;  no,  222, 
Higher  Criticism,  77. 
Hodge,  Rev.  Dr.  Charles,  19,  95, 

144,  160,  161,  163,  174,  207. 
Hodge,  Rev.  Dr.  A.  A. ,  200,  204. 
Holiness,  112,  146,  162,  264,  266; 

and     sovereignty,      22,    23, 

112,  219. 
Holland,   132. 


Hypostatic  Difference,  131  ;  (see 
Trinity^. 

Immortality,  212  ;    Conditional, 

224-226. 
i    Imputation  from  Adam,  85,  116  ; 

from   Christ,     33,     57,     87, 

116,  129,  177,  211. 
Ingersoll,  4,  8,  75. 
Ireland,  North  of,  132. 
IreniEus,  203. 
Islam,  (see  Mohammed). 

/acobitism,  130. 

[efferson,  3,  9. 

Jehovah,  200-202. 

Jews,    130,    162,   200,   201,    206, 

207,  212,  255. 
Judgment,  211,  214,  227,  231. 
Justification,    8,    63,     140,     142, 

167,  172,  174,  177,  178  ;  the 

same  as  sanctification,    178  ; 

by  faith,  167,  172,  174,  177, 

227. 

Kenosis,  208. 

Kings,  the  three,   199,  202,  206. 

Koran  and  Morals,  26. 

Law,  149,  181  ;  (see  Direction)  ; 

includes   gospel,     148,    149  ; 

weakness  of  the,  186  ;  works 

of  the,  184. 
Life  of  God,  1 96. 
Light,  \12. 
Locke,  130,  200,  204. 
Logos,  97,    145,   200,    203,    211  ; 

(see  Word). 
London,  132. 

Loneliness  of  God,  iii,  208. 
Luther,  9,  78,  140,  142,  144,  146, 

147,  151,  161,  162,  174.  212, 

218.    261  ;    his   doctrine   of 

justification,  173. 

Ma7i,  his  chief  end,  86-90 ;  his 
origin,  78 ;  more  morality  for, 
24,  28, 158,  162,  167,  265. 


270 


Index, 


Mary,  Virgin,  126,  217. 

Mass,  (see    Transubstantiation), 

Melancihon,  143,  205. 

Mill,  4,  90, 

Millennium,  227-233. 

Milton,  130,  200,  204. 

Miracle,  79,  84,  180,  210. 

Mohammed,  3,  130.  152,  198, 
206,  207,  221,  263  (see  Is- 
lam). 

Monarchians,  209,  264. 

Moj-al  Quality,  one,   30,  39,  41. 

Alorals  above  God,  19,  264  ;  in 
all  religions,  25  ;  faith  and, 
28  ;  what  are,  30  ;  in  Bible, 
75  ;  God's,  same  as  man's, 
92. 

Moses,  75,  77,  149. 

Alosheim,  20g. 

A^ewman,  147,  152. 

Neivton,  130,  200. 

Nice,  133,  134,  203. 

Noah,  199. 

Numbers  in  Revelation,    futility 

of,  229. 
Nzambi,  26,  27. 

CEstertzee,  200. 

Old  Evangelical  Church,  263, 
265. 

Optimism,  lOi,  104 ;  (see  Uni- 
verse). 

Ordination,  252. 

Oughtness,  38,  46,  63. 

Paganism,    84,    199,    204,    263, 

264. 
Pardon,  61,    139,    174,   includes 

cleansing,  62. 
P atrip apians,  208. 
Pa ul  's  Eschatology,  214,  215. 
Peabody,  Rev.  Dr.,  204. 
Pelagius,  32,  83,  133,    152,    163, 

206. 
Persecution,  130. 
Perseverance,   8,    164,    191,  227. 
Person,  134,  136,  197,  202. 


Peter,  St. ,  28,  29,  193,  237,  254. 
Philo,  133,  203,  204. 
Phinchas,  the  case  of,  167. 
Plato,  133,  201,  206,  212. 
Polytheism,  III,  205,  206. 
Pope,   130,    174,    216,    218,  235, 

241. 
Prayer,  162,  164,  178,  217,  236, 

258. 
Preachers,  245. 
Preaching,  185,  187,  252. 
Predestination ,  (see  Reproba tion . ) 
Presbytery,  246. 
Prison,  spirits  in,  224,  229. 
Probation.  119,  140,    152,  162. 
Propitiation,  139. 
Protestants,  (see  Reformed). 
Ptolemy,  201 . 
Punishment,    22,    52,    1 18,    120, 

124,  151,  206,  219  ;  eternal, 

54.    219,  221  ;    no   future  ? 

223. 
Purgatory,  217,  266. 

Quality,  the  moral,  30,  39,  41. 

Rabbinis?n,  142,  192,  261. 

Rationalism,  205. 

Reason,  21,  23. 

Redemption,    33,    60,    117,    123, 

129.  137,  151,  155,  162,  186, 

195,  206. 
Reformed,  the,    4,   6,  25-33,  85. 

87,     147.     152,      163,     172, 

174,  178,  191,  193,  204,235, 

241,  248,   256;  like  Congo, 

25,  27.  163. 
Regeneration,      158,     164,     172  ; 

passive  in?  159. 
Repentance.  158,  160.  163,   172 
Reprobation,  20,  22,  219. 
Restorationism ,  223. 
Resurrection,     210,      214,     217; 

spiritual,  128. 
Revisionists,    56,  146,    193,    201 

(note). 
Rewards,  48,  49. 
Righteousness,    140  ;    the    word. 


Index, 


271 


30  ;  three  words,  31,  34  ; 
more  than  pleasure,  38,  152  ; 
a  reward,  49  ;  of  God,  171  ; 
the  highest  good,  25,  45  ; 
putative  use,  32.  87,  146  ; 
spurious  use,  33. 
Rom.  IX,  p.  100. 

Sabeilianism,  130,  204,  263. 

Sao'aments,  256,  263. 

Sacrifices,  162. 

Salvation,  150,  155,  156,  166. 

Sanctification,  145,  148,  151,  158, 
161,  167,  174,  177  ;  same 
as  justification,  17S. 

Schaff,  Creeds,  256,  263. 

Science,  75.  84. 

Seeking,  162,  164,  171,  178,  186. 

Self-love,  50,  51. 

Septuagitit,  8g,  201. 

Shorter  Catechism,  89,  96. 

Sirnplicity  of  God,  no. 

Sinai,  148,  149,  150,  1S3,  1S5, 
187,  236. 

Sin,  49,  67  ;  singularities  of,  71  ; 

Sinfubiess,  51,  54,  55  ;  the 
greatest  evil,  52  ;  incurable, 
70,  224,  226  ;  a  punishmentr, 
52,  54,  55,  6S,  70,  151,   219. 

Slaveiy,  75. 

Socinianism,  129,   204,  263. 

Son  of  God,  126,  13J. 

Soul,  213,  216,  217. 

Sovereignty,  7,  8.  19,  22,  28, 
93,  112,  219,  264.  265,  266  ; 
Trinity  and,  200,  204. 

Spencer,  4,  90. 

Spirit,  213  ;  Ho^^  95.  131,  134, 
145,  160,  188  ;  (see  Con- 
science). 

Subjunctive,  100,  231, 

Sunday,  72. 

Supper,  the  Lord's,  260-263. 

Swedcnborg,  204,  264. 

Synod,  247. 

Syrian  Bishops,  3,   206 


Targum,  200, 

Testament,  Old,  200,  212. 

Tetrad,  a,  145. 

Theology,  occasion  for,  64. 

Theologies,  two,  19. 

Thief  on  the  Cross,  215. 

Transubstantiation,  130,  162, 
I9S,  212. 

Trinity,  8,  60,  no,  129,  131, 
133,  145.  152,  205,  210, 
212,  263,  266  ;  history  of  the, 
197  ;  Old  Testament  none, 
200  ;  if  untrue,  a  curse, 
205  ;  and  a  blasphemy,  207  ; 
knowledge  of  the,  essential 
to  salvation,  200,  204  ;  God's 
loneliness  without  a  ?  208. 

Tritheism,   208. 

Truth  saves,  160. 

lyndal,  212,  218. 

Universalism,  theories  of,  222- 
226  ;  old-fashioned,  223. 

Universe,  best  possible,  21,  23, 
loi  ;  no  good  in  the,  ex- 
cept in  emotion,  65. 

Vindicatory  Justice,  6,  20,  22, 
57,  93,  112,  118,  197,  206, 
219,     264 ;    not   primordial, 

58. 
Voltaire,  3. 
Vulgate,  89. 

Ware,  204. 

Watts,  200,  204. 

Will,  19,  22,  109. 

Witness  of   the    Spirit,    21,    24, 

191,  227,  251. 
Word,  97,  145  ;  (see  Logos). 
Works,  149,  153-155,  160,    184  ; 

covenant  of,  189. 
Worship,  III. 

Ze7to,  199. 


